You know an issue is awkward when radical feminists and reactionary conservatives are united.

I've been reading about the new criminal justice act, which, particularly in response to campaigns after the murder of Jane Longhurst, is going to criminalise possession of pornography described as 'extreme' under the act. Punishment could be up to three years in prison (though I haven't read that bit of the act, I only read it here - reactionary Mail article).

I can't decide how I feel about it. Naturally, I condemn token legislation created in response to public hunger for retribution over a particular case, which is clearly what this is. And it's clearly not enforceable independent of some other charge, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine something like a domestic violence case in which the discovery of 'extreme' porn indirectly adds to the case of the prosecution.

I wondered what people's opinions were on their definition of 'extreme' (which I take issue with), whether 'extreme' porn actually is harmful in terms of the views particularly towards women it encourages (I would like to see the government's evidence for this) or whether this is a massive attack on freedom of expression, comparable to the imprisonment of the Marquis de Sade (well, let's perhaps avoid discussion in such overblown terms). Or perhaps whether thinking of it as freedom of expression is liberalism gone badly wrong and defeating its own ends. Before I even get to the political meat of it, I can't bear their **** definition of 'extreme': if they want to criminalise our indecency, they could at least have the decency to use more accurate language.

Seriously, does anyone actually think 'extreme' porn should be banned? I've copied below the relevant part of the Act. Check it out:

link

One thing I find strange how the only parts of the body they classify as 'sexual' are anus, breasts and genitals. I can imagine Luce 'woman has sexual organs just about everywhere' Irigaray not being happy about that one, plus it's just generally wrong. If an act is intrinsically bad for being the taking of sexual pleasure in another's pain, surely that should include pain caused to any part of the other's body, since the sexual quality of the offence has already been established. And that's just one of my problems with this.

Mods, move this into 18+ if you think that's a more appropriate home, but I posted here since it's about a new Act. Please be sensible and avoid posting pictures.

A living person can (usually) decide if they want to harm their own genitals or not.
And it's already illegal to have sex with a corpse.
As for the bestiality, I don't want to see animal sex either (well, the non-Discovery kind) but they don't have the whole Christian shame thing. They just do it for fun. But it is curious that you don't see it naturally occurring. You'd think a hyena would think, hey, think antelope's armpit looks mighty tempting. AT SOME POINT IN HISTORY. Maybe one did like armpit, we'll never know...

But yeah, feminism. Right. Feminism isn't about image issues, it's about personal rights. Unless you're talking Steinem Feminism. In which case let's all castrate ourselves on camera before this bill passes.
The personal right to exercise harm on my own body and/or those of willing mentally competent individuals who want me to hurt theirs is one I would never practice but the violation which has indirect implication on legislation of other similar Acts.
But I really don't care if this is passed or not if it doesn't spread into all porn. Plus, it ain't Canada, so **** you guys, I'll just mosey over to Rotten and ditch my briefs.

of course it should be banned, do you know what extreme porn is?for ex there are people practising cannibalism as a sex act(ex 'the Rottenburg cannibal', a real case), anyway to ban it wont help the fact that some people are completely degenerated.

The main problems with this Act would be:

A) These acts already have a place in the judicial process through legislative mechanisms. Regardless of this Act passing, you still cannot **** corpses.
B) It would be used to classify anyone getting their asses paddled on a sling as offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character, and illegal.

The main thing that annoys me about it is that it is being driven by the case of that girl who was murdered and her mother. I empathise with her grief but I honestly do not think victims of crimes like this are automatically created as experts who must be listened to, and who can emotionally blackmail the general poplulation over issues. The other one that springs to mind is the mother of that Sarah girl, who pushed for Sarah's Law. If there needs to be legislation let people who are qualified and above all do not have an emotional stake in the outcome talk about it.

as for the legislation I'm not going to get too worried about losing the questionable artistic expression of such gems as 'man ****s horse', however, I do wonder how they will enforce this (aside from discovering it whilst investigating other crimes) and how they will delineate when it will be applied, and when it will not...what for example will constitute extreme?