Scottish Parliament pr0n law faces angry opposition

@ Sarah

Lack of clarity is no excuse. Mea culpa. I have absolutely no problems with feminist aspirations to achieve equality of remuneration and the removal of the so-called 'glass ceiling' which impedes the promotion of women in many organisations, but hopefully not in the hallowed halls of El Reg! Neither do I have a problem with their insistence that they should be respected as individual human beings and not treated as chattels to be bought, sold, and abused by men.

But as you know there is an uglier side to the feminist movement in the form of the rabid man-haters who are prepared to pre-judge and condemn anyone with testicles. When these extremists are in a position to draft legislation we end up with loony-tune laws such as the current proposals to criminalise people simply for being in possession of an image.Or the legislation that can result in a man being sent to jail for having sex with a prostitute who may have been illegally brought into the UK. Being ignorant of the fact that woman has been trafficked into this country is not a valid defence. You have balls therefore you are guilty. Thank you Ms Smith.

can't think of one..

** Nice bit of trolling lol.

"without all the disgusting deviant forcing their views on the rest of us."

Oh, you were 'forced' to go and look at all those websites were you? **

Eh? how did you arrived at that conclusion: - 'forcing their views on the rest of us' became 'forced to go and look at all those websites'? I've obviously missed point 'B' in your journey from points 'A' to 'C'.

Anyway, i digress....

This seems like another knee-jerk reaction to an event (is this not also rooted in the case where that guy strangled his girlfriend as part of his perversion?).

Can we really legislate for deviants with personality disorders?

'Man hating feminists'

I am always interested in this category, as the only women I know who speak about hating men are straight women who happen to live with a right bastard.

The feminist position against porn is that (1) it reinforces the image that women are *only* sexual objects there to pleasure men, that woman=sex, while man=human (2) the porn industry itself involves the use and abuse of women, and in fact a lot of men who are abused or come from abusive childhoods (3) the porn industry is closely knit into prostitution, and prostitution involves the abuse of women, especially when it involves 'white slavery' (read Mischa Glenny's latest book on international crime for the horrific extent of this), when it attracts those who have been abused as children, or who are drug addicts, to prostitute themselves.

The idea of porn as a lot of hot-looking model/actresses having fun rumpty-pumpty is not exactly accurate. Some mainstream stuff is OK, and the people involved in it very clued-up, but a lot is actually filmed abuse, and to be able to disassociate how it was made with the fiction that is shows is part of the disconnect feminists find so distressing in current male culture, that is, good, decent men who would find the bullying and abuse of a young woman in Sainsbury's something to intervene to prevent will happily watch it on screen, as their pleasure comes first, and how it got onto their screens, well, la la la I'm not listening.

I'm not sure I have represented the feminist stance against porn properly, but it's not insane and irrational, it's not full of hate and death-to-men. It's a thought-out position, and just because they want to eliminate your fun (ie want to change how you think about sex and women) does not make them demons. Anyone who has worked with the homeless and has seen young women and young men completely messed up by their childhoods and seeking the only thing they know, which is more abuse, and finding it so easily, continually, relentlessly offered to them in the porn business, is bound to be less welcoming to porn. To me, it's like drugs: the spliff you enjoy or the coke you snort has come to you on the backs of hundreds and thousands of poor, oppressed third-world people and destroyed first-world people and your pleasure is not guilt free.

Having said that, I still think the proposed laws are deeply stupid. You don't change attitudes and minds by enacting laws.

@Sarah Bee

"No feminists I know are in favour of this sort of legislation, and I don't see how it's a feminist agenda fuelling this"

I suggest you take a look at the English Government's "Consultation" on "extreme pornography" which was written by three feminist anti-pornography campaigners...

I just want to...

...give a hearty standing ovation to El Reg, it's contributors, it's esteemed commentards and moderatrix for a much more enlightened set of views and opinions than followed last weeks' "Make the men redundant first" article and comments.

I still can't get my head around the fact that some of the most insightful reporting on general news I read comes from a tech site, but it's still fantastic to have it. If you ever bother issuing a paper edition (again) to sit alongside Private Eye on the news stands in Smiths, I'd gladly subscribe.

Trebles all round.

P.S. There's no sarcasm here, BTW. No really

@ Sceptical Bastard

"Anyway, who are the nation who invented Irn Bru, razor gangs, drunkeness and deep-fried Mars bar to lecture anyone on what's good for us? Ginger skirt-wearing pillocks, the lot of them."

More cynical than sceptical I'd say. But definitely a bastard.

@Hollerith

> I'm not sure I have represented the feminist stance against porn properly, but it's not insane and irrational,

I suggest you look up the name "Andrea Dworkin" for some of the most extreme (and irrational) arguments against porn (starting with "all men are rapists"!)

No, not all feminists think this way (I personally know several members of the Feminists Against Censorship group who are of the opinion "It's my body, don't tell me what I can or can't do with it just because you don't like it or think I'm letting down the Sisterhood") but the fact remains that there are those (and some of them are now in power!) who believe the sort of things that you cite.

I look at porn. In fact I could be accused of producing it as I make and sell BDSM gear and have a catalogue and website of affordable leather products that features female (and male!) models in it. But I don't think that the models (male or female) only exist for my pleasure or that their modelling makes them "less human" than me.

The assertion that "a lot" of those who participate in porn are victims of abuse or that porn is "filmed abuse" is ludicrous. Yes, there may be *some* who have been abused, yes, not *all* of it is consensual, but trying to use that as an excuse for banning something simply to protect a *minority* is pointless and short-sighted, not to mention downright insulting to all those who, of their own free will, choose to appear in it.

PS @Gregor, what, exactly, is your point apart from a bit of petty pedantry?

@Hollerith

Where does this article published today fit in with your notional feminists' position?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7927461.stm

Theirs may be a 'thought-out position'. Lots and lots of thought. Lots of emotion too - well it's an emotive subject I guess.

Not a lot of fact though.

Yes, the prostitution industry is not whiter than white. But groups like those in the the NZ article can tell you (and do you really believe radical feminists over those who work in the industry?) that abuse let alone trafficking is much in the minority.

And the porn industry is not closely linked to the prostitution industry. If abuse in prostitution is unusual, in porn it's more so. And, you may think illogically, it appears to be extremely rare in the sort of 'violent porn' that this law mainly targets.

Ask your feminists for an example - yes that's right, just ONE example - of serious abuse in the making of violent porn. They'll tell you about the snuff films the existence of which has been long discredited. Ignore all those that are clearly anecdotal and don't refer to a real person and a real film or image, and they have NOTHING else.

"a lot [of porn] is actually filmed abuse" is it Hollerith? These assumptions help nobody, and they are demonstrably lies.

Re: 'Man hating feminists'

I see the thinking. So, as some cheap clothing is produced through economically vulnerable or virtually slave labour, and some criminals make profits, we can expect a law telling us to get naked?

Or maybe all just wear the same approved boiler suits? Look the same, think the same - one of us, one of us?

Why not go after the criminal exploiters? It seems to be a tactic of ZaNu Labour and their ilk to instead target a convenient sub-group, currently non-criminal, who do not fit with their social ideology. I guess real criminals are far too problematic - <irony> they are, after all, victims of society. </irony>

And I know some people would not like the squishy icky sex things I might like to get up to, but that does not mean that my consensual adult partners are only joining in because, as 'the virtuous' believe, they are incapable of thinking properly or enjoying themselves.

re: can't think of one..

"Can we really legislate for deviants with personality disorders?"

Excuse me? A murderer is a murderer. Therefore shouldn't you be asking 'Can we really criminalise innocent consenting people where there are no victims?'

I suggest you get your facts straight before labelling a huge proportion of very 'normal' people, and I shall kindly go out of my way to provide a link for you to do so.

http://www.revisef65.org/psychopathology.html

mmm, on reading my last sentence, I should have perhaps been clearer..

The case that has triggered this type of legislation was the guy that murdered his girlfriend. Seems he had a prediliction for seeing woman suffer / being hurt in a sexual context and acted out on this fantasy. I suggest the description of being both sexually deviant and having a personality disorder is accurate in this case.

What is not clear is what effect the material he was looking at had on him. Therefore the intent of the legislation (to stop people like him from accessing this type of material and then going onto commit murder, presumably) is based on a flawed presumption.

Ergo, can we really legislate for deviants with personality disorders?

Thanks for the link though. If i do, in the future, decide to direct my comments to the "huge proportion of 'normal' people" you refer to, i'll be sure to read it.

Too much time on their hands

This is what happens when governments have too much of the public's money. They invent work to keep people busy, hire more staff and otherwise do everything they can to spend it all so that they can ask for more later. Knobheads.

Re: It just goes to show you can't be too careful

That definitely deserves repeating.

It just goes to show you can't be too careful

It just goes to show you can't be too careful

It just goes to show you can't be too careful

It just goes to show you can't be too careful

With respect to David Mitchell. Keep 'em coming, Dave.

OK you nutters

Just ban sex altogether and be done with it. It will save time.

On related news (kiddie porn cartoons, here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/17/cartoon_badness/ ), Hall of Fame-worthy comment from a MP:

"If somebody is in the process of arousing themselves sexually by that process, it must be part of something. In a lot of cases, it will be part of something that will lead on to something else."

I think that's clear. Or not.

re: can't think of one

You wrote: "Can we really legislate for deviants with personality disorders?"

I wrote: Excuse me? A murderer is a murderer. Therefore shouldn't you be asking 'Can we really criminalise innocent consenting people where there are no victims?'

I suggest you get your facts straight before labelling a huge proportion of very 'normal' people, and I shall kindly go out of my way to provide a link for you to do so.

http://www.revisef65.org/psychopathology.html "

Your response was: "mmm, on reading my last sentence, I should have perhaps been clearer..

The case that has triggered this type of legislation was the guy that murdered his girlfriend. Seems he had a prediliction for seeing woman suffer / being hurt in a sexual context and acted out on this fantasy. I suggest the description of being both sexually deviant and having a personality disorder is accurate in this case."

My response to that: It was triggered, a knee jerk reaction to a case where not only was someone killed, but he went out of his way to hide that it had ever happened.

This is not something that happens every day of the week, yet has been happening before images, tv, the internet ever even existed, yet because he happened to have images on his computer, oh, a new reason for a mentality they still can not explain or erradicate after thousands of years! Er...riiiight...People act out their fantasies every day of the week yet you would never know, because guess what...everyone's fine and happy and getting on with their daily business as usual, keeping their private lives private and acting responsibly because they 'care', while doing so.

As others have written for example, the person who wrote the film 'the Accused' had certain thoughts. It doesn't mean he would ever go out and rape someone in such a manner. The producers, directors, script writers, actors and actresses, cameramen and all those involved are all taking part in play 'fantasy acts' as part of their job - a job they love doing. Every day regular people are no different and are generally as sane and as normal as any of those involved in film making.

You wrote: " What is not clear is what effect the material he was looking at had on him. Therefore the intent of the legislation (to stop people like him from accessing this type of material and then going onto commit murder, presumably) is based on a flawed presumption.

My response: The law as it stands gives too many 'excuses' for criminals to receive lighter sentences or even get out of jail free cards. Each and every person that exists are responsible for their own actions. All this nonsense "It wasn't' my fault, the pictures made me do it!" is just another excuse being handed to such criminals to pass the blame onto something else and not take responsibility for their own actions and giving them lighter sentences, early parole etc etc. Again, people will kill people, a very small minority and have done so for thousands of years, long before images, long before the internet, long before cameras and videos appeared. To blame it on images is just a nonsense.

You asked again "Ergo, can we really legislate for deviants with personality disorders?"

My response: Given your clarification of what you mean, no. And yet that is 'exactly' what this ridiculous law is doing, giving them a validated 'excuse' to say "It's not my fault!'. So again, I'll repeat, where there are no victims, there has been no crime committed, there should be no criminilisation. It is no different to the days where Gays were instantly labelled as Paedophiles, which of course is simply not true. We've come a long way since then, and just as with S&M, England is the only country who does not (want) to recognise that according to the extensive research that 'does' exist, S&Mers are actually 'less likely' to have personality disorders. But who can be blamed and held responsible then? Let me think....Oh, of course, individuals and self responsibility!

You then wrote, which really doesn't surprise me: " Thanks for the link though. If i do, in the future, decide to direct my comments to the "huge proportion of 'normal' people" you refer to, i'll be sure to read it. "

My response: That attitude says it all. Not interested in finding out facts? Not a politician by any chance, are you? :p

It's too easy to want something done, point the finger at something easy and convenient to point the finger at and bury your head in the sand. Facts are facts and refusing to even acknowledge them is why the Government stuff up so badly in the first place and will continue to do so. And the sad part is, the innocent people who are going to have their lives wrecked, their jobs wrecked, their families lives wrecked - for nothing - in the process. That'll really put murderers off from murdering, won't it.

another reply to AC

'My response: That attitude says it all. Not interested in finding out facts? Not a politician by any chance, are you? :p'

Attitude? Lol, just not interested in S&M. At all.

But don't be surprised to receive a comment in the same tone as the one that you left ;-)

To me the S&M aspect of this is incidental. My thoughts are, that for a small number of people in this world, who have some kind of deviant personality (evidenced by the desire to harm or kill other human beings), the use of certain types of pornography (if the desire has a sexual element) or violent video games/films etc, etc may normalise (to them) the extreme aspects of their nature. I think it is then a small step for them to cross the line.

Is this an excuse for them? No. They are culpable for their actions and the full penalty of the law should be applied.

While i agree with you re: blaming images for unacceptable behaviour, the power of images to influence cannot be denied. Why do so many young girls want to be thin? - because they see their heroes on TV etc and want to be like them. Why do companies advertise?

As i said, what is not clear is how much difference not having access to such material would have made to a man such as this. Consequently, i think this law is flawed.

@ElFatbob

"My thoughts are, that for a small number of people in this world, who have some kind of deviant personality (evidenced by the desire to harm or kill other human beings), the use of certain types of pornography (if the desire has a sexual element) or violent video games/films etc, etc may normalise (to them) the extreme aspects of their nature. I think it is then a small step for them to cross the line."

You're sure, are you, that it's safer for people to stay "unnormalised", and to feel that a sexual interest in these matters has to be evidence of a dangerous sickness that must be resisted at all costs?

Even though a common thread in so many serial killers is a a repressive upbringing and a long period when they fought and suppressed all those disturbing thoughts. Until they couldn't do it any more....

Cos, there's no way porn could do anything but harm, could it? Ted Bundy who was responsible for maybe 60 killings thought so, and he should know.

I haven't followed all the thread and agree with other things you say, but the 'normalisation' argument isn't one to take on trust and unexamined.