UK: fake "rape porn" possession punishable by 3 years in jail

[Balthazar]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Is fake rape porn worse than fake murders in movies? What is fake rape porn anyway? BDSM? Simulated "forced sex"? What if someone is owning a copy of "A clockwork Orange"? Criminal? If not, why? What about the ladies with their 50 shades of Grey? It's clearly porn and forced sex.

What the hell is going on?

 

[dionysus]

oh good Lord - are they going to break down gramma Dio's door if sh'es got a Y & the R (that's a soap) tape running? I mean, what daytime drama tv show doesn't have the girl going 'no, you cad (or bastard, bad boy w/e), don't, I can't, my husband' or some such, while he pins her against the wall, then the guy grabs her, kisses her, and suddenly it's consensual.

Ok, first off, ACTUAL rape is wrong IN ANY SCENARIO'. that being said, who cares if you get your jollies watching kinky s and m rape fantasy role play....providing it's FAKE.
And what of all those shows where the slutty cougar is dinking the pool boy, plying him with drinks, or eyeing the neighbour's 17 something

and THEN, Hell, stop every teen drama, because hey, now, those minors (played by twenty-somethings) are having sex...that'll be rape fantasy too don'tcha know. sorry, no more Dawson's Creek reruns or the Vampire-whatevers.

I guess they're going to have to recall every classic romance film as they slide down this slippery slope

 

[Cleveland]

You have people condemning those of us with religious believes as we "shouldn't need a higher power telling us what's morally correct."

Thankfully we have people telling us what's morally correct.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This law is already in place in Scotland. This means there is a chance to see how it is working (or not working) in practice.

Scotland must already have determined a legal definition of "rape porn".

It does beg the question though of how films and TV dramas are classified to guarantee that implementation of this law will not lead to ridiculous situations where possession of a drama series or movie has someone up before a judge because there are scenes where the cast depict an act of rape. There are MANY films and TV dramas where such violent acts are depicted, but they are of course all fake, non one actually gets hurt or killed as it's all clever camera work and special effects. The problem is, this is not an admissible defence under this law.

As for "possession", the biggest offenders will be the big store chains that stock the DVDs, and Amazon is probably the biggest offender of all.

Despite this, there has not been an outcry in Scotland, where this law has been in place, so maybe there have yet to be any prosecutions, which might support the "it's not working" argument.

This looks more like a popular announcement, knowing 2015 sees the next election, the same as the previous announcement that ISPs would banish illegal porn from UK screens, which turns out not to be the simple exercise he thought when announcing it. Even the latest technical tools are a drop in the ocean. Having Google act now to remove such material from it's search service is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Someone interviewed stated that no one in the "pervert business" still uses Google to search for what they want. The latest measures only address the problem of people accidentally stumbling upon this illegal porn when Googling something else. It will, however, APPEAR to be a great success, because Google, and by implication the internet, will be "clean" in time for the 2015 election, all thanks to David Cameron

 

[dunover]

If the human race was wiped off of the planet tomorrow, it would probably have an epitaph that rather than remembering it for invention and compassion would have those that wrote it pondering humankind's capacity to commit terrible deeds on each other.

 

[dionysus]

If the human race was wiped off of the planet tomorrow, it would probably have an epitaph that rather than remembering it for invention and compassion would have those that wrote it pondering humankind's capacity to commit terrible deeds on each other.

lol, I've always said, if God came from on high, and gave me the casting vote as to whether we should continue as a species, even looking at art, music and all we've accomplished, I'd still say 'meh, give the bugs their shot'

 

[Balthazar]

...

...

Since you two live there, I'm going to ask you directly:

Is porn such a problem in the UK that it must be dealt with at all cost including such drastic measures? First the opt in internet thing, now this. One would think that porn is a serious issue causing substantial societal damage. Well, either that or the UK is once again rising the bar of political correctness at the expense of basic common sense and individual liberties?

In all seriousness, every time that I read about UK laws I become genuinely scared that they give our politicians new ideas for population control.

 

[skiny]

If the human race was wiped off of the planet tomorrow, it would probably have an epitaph that rather than remembering it for invention and compassion would have those that wrote it pondering humankind's capacity to commit terrible deeds on each other.

lol, I've always said, if God came from on high, and gave me the casting vote as to whether we should continue as a species, even looking at art, music and all we've accomplished, I'd still say 'meh, give the bugs their shot'

I think sometimes we forget that although we are the dominant species on this planet we are still just a species that has evolved from the same roots as all the rest. Compared to other species that are (and have been) on this planet, we haven't even been around very long. Relatively speaking, we are a fairly young species and it wasn't very long ago that we would have thought that clubbing each other on the head for a scrap of food or a better mate would have been quite justified. I'm fairly certain our earlier ancestors would have had a "take what you want" attitude whether it be food, territory or a mate and speaking from an evolutionary stand point that attitude would have been in part what made us stronger. Luckily as we progressed we found it more beneficial not to kill within our families, tribes, clans and territories and eventually "love thy neighbour" and "thou shalt not kill" became religious teachings - provided thy neighbour didn't form it's own religion or oppose your government or (depending on which part of which country you live in) threaten you with bodily harm or try to steal any of your shit. Then it remained justified.

Now most species have been quite content to spend their lives finding and protecting a territory, finding food and finding a mate but the human species has not been quite so complacent. We've created art and architecture, learned to fly, mapped the planet, the stars and the human genome. We've looked deep into the universe and deep into the nucleus of a single atom but for all our achievements we are still that same species that took what we wanted, when we wanted it. Those instincts still exist. Although most of us agree that certain behaviours are wrong and have the ability to curb them, there are still times when our ancient barbaric instincts surface. If our species survives another hundred years or hundred thousand years, this may still be the case. Like it or not we may be stuck with them. Humans innately want power. The power to take what we want and who we want and this instinct has surfaced in all forms of art whether it's sculpted, painted, filmed or written.

Still, I think the fact that we've gone from wandering naked on the plains of Africa with nothing but a shard of rock for a tool to watching the Mars landing on our home computers in the last hundred thousand years or so says a lot for our species. The crocodile has been around for millions of years and when's the last time you saw one of them build a spaceship?

 

[dionysus]

I think sometimes we forget that although we are the dominant species on this planet we are still just a species that has evolved from the same roots as all the rest. Compared to other species that are (and have been) on this planet, we haven't even been around very long. Relatively speaking, we are a fairly young species and it wasn't very long ago that we would have thought that clubbing each other on the head for a scrap of food or a better mate would have been quite justified. I'm fairly certain our earlier ancestors would have had a "take what you want" attitude whether it be food, territory or a mate and speaking from an evolutionary stand point that attitude would have been in part what made us stronger. Luckily as we progressed we found it more beneficial not to kill within our families, tribes, clans and territories and eventually "love thy neighbour" and "thou shalt not kill" became religious teachings - provided thy neighbour didn't form it's own religion or oppose your government or (depending on which part of which country you live in) threaten you with bodily harm or try to steal any of your shit. Then it remained justified.

Now most species have been quite content to spend their lives finding and protecting a territory, finding food and finding a mate but the human species has not been quite so complacent. We've created art and architecture, learned to fly, mapped the planet, the stars and the human genome. We've looked deep into the universe and deep into the nucleus of a single atom but for all our achievements we are still that same species that took what we wanted, when we wanted it. Those instincts still exist. Although most of us agree that certain behaviours are wrong and have the ability to curb them, there are still times when our ancient barbaric instincts surface. If our species survives another hundred years or hundred thousand years, this may still be the case. Like it or not we may be stuck with them. Humans innately want power. The power to take what we want and who we want and this instinct has surfaced in all forms of art whether it's sculpted, painted, filmed or written.

Still, I think the fact that we've gone from wandering naked on the plains of Africa with nothing but a shard of rock for a tool to watching the Mars landing on our home computers in the last hundred thousand years or so says a lot for our species. The crocodile has been around for millions of years and when's the last time you saw one of them build a spaceship?

lol, who knows, there may well have been a few well-evolved species - with their couple hundred thousand years being only a drop in the bucket of time, could be that any trace of their existence has been long since wiped out lol
as to crocs and say, sharks - when you're the penultimate predator already, there's not much they've needed in evolutionary jumps

 

[Balthazar]

as to crocs and say, sharks - when you're the penultimate predator already, there's not much they've needed in evolutionary jumps

Not to nitpick but both (crocs and sharks) did evolve several times into "something else" (and I'm quite sure that the list of "new species" with one of them as a common ancestor is a long one), they are still here because life on Earth is still (and always was) suitable for them. Evolution doesn't kill species, adaptation does.

 

[dionysus]

Not to nitpick but both (crocs and sharks) did evolve several times into "something else" (and I'm quite sure that the list of "new species" is a long one), they are still here because life on Earth today is still (and always was) suitable for them. Evolution doesn't kill species, adaptation does.

lol, well, I never said they didn't evolve (and still aren't) - they just have remained 'essentially' the same for quite some time - they didn't need to change at the rate humans did, they function pretty well pretty much 'as is' - humans however, went pretty far, pretty fast in the big picture.

A fun read, for anyone who likes evolution dumbed down is the Science of Discworld series

 

[Balthazar]

lol, well, I never said they didn't evolve (and still aren't) - they just have remained 'essentially' the same for quite some time - they didn't need to change at the rate humans did, they function pretty well pretty much 'as is' - humans however, went pretty far, pretty fast in the big picture.

Evolution is a bit confusing because we tend to think that the same species change or adapt but they really don't. Changes occur only via mutation (ie: new species is born). Humans haven't evolved in roughly 200,000 years and won't evolve again until some mutant human with fucked up DNA (and hopefully the gene that gives him/her wings) starts reproducing with other humans and passing those genes around, creating a new "more evolved" species in the process. Then you'll have humans on one side and "humans-with-wings" on the other side (but it would more likely be "humans-without-pinky-toes").

Or maybe we'll evolve when we start tinkering with DNA (because it will probably happen one day).

It's kind of a shame that our cousins from 200,000 years ago didn't make it. It would be quite something to share the world with another intelligent species. Imagine the epic wars...

 

[skiny]

Not to nitpick but both (crocs and sharks) did evolve several times into "something else" (and I'm quite sure that the list of "new species" with one of them as a common ancestor is a long one), they are still here because life on Earth is still (and always was) suitable for them. Evolution doesn't kill species, adaptation does.

Crocs have been evolving since they shared the planet with dinosaurs but the fundamental changes have been small compared to other species. They're essentially the same creature. Random mutations are more likely to be passed from generation to generation if they're beneficial but crocs don't really need much help. They get along just fine the way they are.

Evolution is a bit confusing because we tend to think that the same species change or adapt but they really don't. Changes occur only via mutation (ie: new species is born). Humans haven't evolved in roughly 200,000 years and won't evolve again until some mutant human with fucked up DNA (and hopefully the gene that gives him/her wings) starts reproducing with other humans and passing those genes around, creating a new "more evolved" species in the process. Then you'll have humans on one side and "humans-with-wings" on the other side (but it would more likely be "humans-without-pinky-toes").

Or maybe we'll evolve when we start tinkering with DNA (because it will probably happen one day).

It's kind of a shame that our cousins from 200,000 years ago didn't make it. It would be quite something to share the world with another intelligent species. Imagine the epic wars...

A species doesn't have to actually become a new species to have evolved although if enough changes occur over time eventually they can no longer procreate with their relatives who haven't followed the same path. That's when they become a new species.

I doubt you'll see much physical evolution in the human species at this point. Our physical attributes no longer play a large roll in our survival with the exception to immunities from disease and with modern medicine, even that doesn't play a huge roll. Our population is so large and the fact that we're not locked into smaller separate groups makes it unlikely for any single random mutation to spread very easily though out the species. We have a huge population and it's possible for any human to mate with any other human on the planet.

If a mutation has no benefit in a large population it won't be any more likely to be passed on than un-mutated genes. So unless something drastically changes on this planet I think we're pretty much stuck with what we are for the long haul.

 

[Balthazar]

Crocs have been evolving since they shared the planet with dinosaurs but the fundamental changes have been small compared to other species. They're essentially the same creature. Random mutations are more likely to be passed from generation to generation if they're beneficial but crocs don't really need much help. They get along just fine the way they are.

Changes do not occur because of needs. If humans suddenly need wings to survive, that doesn't mean that we'll grow wings. The crocodile "version" that we see now is still there because it was adapted to life at all points in their history and didn't disappear. If life was no longer suitable for them, they wouldn't transform into something else, they would just go extinct (like many crocodilians in the past).

 

[skiny]

Changes do not occur because of needs. If humans suddenly need wings to survive, that doesn't mean that we'll grow wings. The crocodile "version" that we see now is still there because it was adapted to life at all points in their history and didn't disappear. If life was no longer suitable for them, they wouldn't transform into something else, they would just go extinct (like many crocodilians in the past).

Yes, generally speaking changes don't occur because of need. Changes occur completely randomly but beneficial changes are more likely to be passed on to future generations because a beneficial mutation gives the species a better chance to survive and procreate. If a species is getting along just fine in it's environment, very few mutations would actually be beneficial. For example if the odd croc was born with a slightly longer snout it would have no better chance of surviving and procreating then any other so the random mutation would not be more likely to be passed on. That's what I meant by "Crocs don't need much help."

Evolution can occur as a result of need. If a species is stripped of a food source or are forced to move to a new environment, animals that could not adapt would have a very slim chance of generating any offspring. Animals that could adapt would have a good chance of passing these traits on to their young. But there is no guarantee a species will evolve to suit it's environment. The entire species could just as easily go extinct which has happened to over 99% of the species that's ever lived on this planet.

Some evolution can also occur because certain traits become unnecessary. (A lack of need.) Birds that no longer fly are a good example of this. The trouble comes when a predator is suddenly introduced to a species that has lived without threat for so many generations that they have lost their defenses. And I'm sure there's always one smart ass bird walking around saying "I told you we'd need to fly but ohhh no. You said just walk around, it'll be fine."

This has really derailed the original thread though. My original point was that as much as we have changed from our ancestors I think a lot of the old instincts are still with us, as barbaric as they may be.

The other thing about the rape porn is you would need to be sure you had a clear definition of what constitutes porn. The definition of porn not only changes from country to country and culture to culture but it's also changed greatly over time.

Rape scenes occur regularly in mainstream movies and television shows along with other acts of violence such as murder and various forms of abuse although in mainstream movies, most often justice is served in the end. You would want to be careful in that grey area where a movie is not intended to be porn in itself but does have enough nudity or sex scenes for some people to consider it pornographic. Many independent movies aren't even rated so I guess someone would have to decide if it deserves an X rating after the complaint about the rape scene and then press charges.

 

[Balthazar]

as much as we have changed from our ancestors I think a lot of the old instincts are still with us, as barbaric as they may be.

This is true and no amount of social engineering will change that, ever. Wars, recreational sex, fighting sports, survival of the fittest and so on are things that are embedded deep in the human genes. Just look at human sexuality for example, with women naturally attracted to fit guys or guys with money while men are attracted to women with big hips and big breasts. This isn't a choice and it's pretty unfair.

Some of us might not like it, but who are they to tell others that it is wrong? Is it wrong when a lion kills an antelope? Sometimes they eat them when they are still alive. It sure feels wrong for us, but is it? The cruelty of nature is one of the main reason why it's successful.

PS: I'm not justifying rape here of course. Rapists are a threat to society and should rot in jail. I doubt that the fake rape watcher is a threat, though.

 

[skiny]

This is true and no amount of social engineering will change that, ever. Wars, recreational sex, fighting sports, survival of the fittest and so on are things that are embedded deep in the human genes. Just look at human sexuality for example, with women naturally attracted to fit guys or guys with money while men are attracted to women with big hips and big breasts. This isn't a choice and it's pretty unfair.

Some of us might not like it, but who are they to tell others that it is wrong? Is it wrong when a lion kills an antelope? Sometimes they eat them when they are still alive. It sure feels wrong for us, but is it? The cruelty of nature is one of the main reason why it's successful.

PS: I'm not justifying rape here of course. Rapists are a threat to society and should rot in jail. I doubt that the fake rape watcher is a threat, though.

Some of us might not like it and some of us can't tell anyone what to do but when most of us don't like it, rules, regulations and laws are supposed to keep the majority happy.

I do have a hard time with outright bans on anything that isn't directly detrimental to society or the general public. I could never figure out why marijuana is illegal and alcohol is not. One is no better or worse for you than the other.

I have no doubt that many people are offended by "rape porn." I'm just not clear on how this is more offensive than other types fantasy porn such as porn where the woman dresses up as a young girl in a school or boarding house or maybe porn set in a church. Pornographic films have been around since film was invented and I'm pretty sure you could name any offensive scenario and a pornographic movie has been made to fantasize about it.

It could be said that it's more offensive in a porn movie than in mainstream movies because mainstream movies generally portray the act as evil and violent and the perpetrator usually ends up facing some sort of punishment but that doesn't explain why this is on the table for criminalization while very realistic video games that are readily available to teens and children give you higher scores depending on how many people you kill.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective, really.

 

[incrediblestuff]

Without wanting to engage in the interesting evolution side topic, i just want to express my amazement over the fact that real rapists
mostly get less of a sentence then henceforth people with a knack for questionable entertainment would receive....

 

[skiny]

Without wanting to engage in the interesting evolution side topic, i just want to express my amazement over the fact that real rapists
mostly get less of a sentence then henceforth people with a knack for questionable entertainment would receive....

That's a good point. What is the mandatory sentence for a convicted rapist?

 

[incrediblestuff]

Mandatory minimum 2 years here, up to 12 years, with brutal violence or such up to 18 years,
but the sad fact is that most simply get away with it. The providing of proof is what is the hardest apparantly in rape cases,
where as possession of said material would be undeniable in most cases, which would lead to a high conviction rate per prosecution.

The whole thing is just absurd in my opinion.

 

[skiny]

It just seems like a slippery slope when we start criminalizing what people fantasize about. Child porn is obviously an entirely different story because it involves the abuse and exploitation of children in it's creation. But when you have consenting adults creating a fake story, I don't think we should be dictating what the plot is allowed to be.

Yes, rape is brutally violent and only the mentally unstable would perpetrate such a terrible crime but then so is the sexual abuse of children and nobody seems to be rallying against videos with 30 year old women in pig tails and a schoolgirl uniform.

I would have to see some evidence that viewing these types of videos made it more likely for someone to commit the crimes. I doubt that many rapists started out by watching fantasy porn first.