David Cameron Decides Porn is Bad for You, Blocks All Access to Pornography in UK

[smartcooky]

My final concern is how much a load of crap the whole affair is. It may instil a false sense of security in some parents (pornography isn't the real threat to children on the internet: it's viruses, strange people, fraud, bullying, addiction etc.) and kids may now be even more unsupervised on the internet than before. Wrapping kids in cotton wool is no good for them either. Kids need to know about sex and porn and drugs and alcohol in the modern world, and at a young age. Isolating them in order to preserve their innocence only strengthens their ignorance, and it may just come back to bite them when they're older.

THIS!!!!

Hiding kids away from dangerous and unpleasant things does nothing to protect them when they become exposed (and they will) to those dangerous and unpleasant things when they are older.

Kids are discouraged from climbing trees and playing in tree-huts
Playgrounds are protected with padding
Cycle helmets are compulsory
etc etc etc.

Authorities spend heaps of money and resources trying to protect kids from child pornographers, kiddie fiddlers and other low-life scum-bag perverts, using "Stranger Danger" campaigns and the like, and now, suggesting that everyone's rights be trampled over for the sake of insulating society from a tiny minority of perverted individuals s etc etc, instead of resourcing law enforcement to catch these perverts and put them away permanently.

 

[j'nuh]

I wonder whether this will, years from now, be known as the "prohibition era" of modern British history.

After the blocking of pornography set by the Cameron administration, teenage boys and frustrated men flock to chat rooms of illicit nature, to exchange pornography. These chat rooms will be colloquially known as "spunkeasies".

Police will infiltrate these chat rooms. But with the ever flowing pornography, and the restrictions that the policemen's own wives put on the household broadband account for their children, these policemen will be easily bribed.

Of course, the restrictions will lead to a drying up of the porn supply. With fewer customers, the porn industry cannot hope to fund itself, and it collapses. It gets driven underground, led by a new breed of cyber, pornographic gangs. New monikers appear in gangs, eg "Scardick" and "Al Capoon".

With gangs comes corruption. MPs and police officials will no longer have to use expenses forms to order pornography. They will sit in the pocket of gangs and "porn for favours" will be a new catchphrase of the British press.

And 15 years from now, when porn is at an all-time high and no one knows why we couldn't restrict it, the Conservative government will finally let it go. People will take to stree- uhm... their bedrooms to celebrate the legalisation of porn. Those people who have been campaigning for the repeal of prohibition, the "wets", will have the greatest day of their lives.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Well that was just excellent.

 

[TRF_heineken]

 

[Peat]

Speaking of what counts as porn...

... I want to start a campaign for the Mail Online's side bar of half-dressed celebrities to count as porn if this goes through.

 

[Big Ewis]

Have you ever heard Quebec French spoken yoe? I hear it's pretty bad patois and has some distinct qualities from mainland French. I've heard it criticized as almost worse than the most backwater Southern accents and oddest English regional accents.

haha yep, lived in Montreal for a couple of years...best years of my life.
And yes, it's the accent from peasants during the Medieval times, mixed with some notes of American phonetic similarities. It's pretty bad, but there's worse. The Cajuns from Southern USA. It's barely recognizable.

Yoe would wear that "banned in the UK" status with pride, grace and dignity...something like this.....

:lol:
...that I would...


Oh and, about the whole pointless and perfectly sterile "what is pron and what isn't" argument, let me make it as simple as possible:
* if you see dicks and/or vaginas (...or buttholes), it's pron. Chances are if you see all that, they're masturbating or actually doing it somehow.
* If it's just suggestive sexual intercourse and you don't actually see the genitalia, it's erotic crap.

There...

 

[nickdnz]

Oh and, about the whole pointless and perfectly sterile "what is pron and what isn't" argument, let me make it as simple as possible:
* if you see dicks and/or vaginas (...or buttholes), it's pron. Chances are if you see all that, they're masturbating or actually doing it somehow.
* If it's just suggestive sexual intercourse and you don't actually see the genitalia, it's erotic crap.

There...

All porn then under your criteria. "What is porn" is actually a very deep philisophical conundrum - as what porn is - is a discursive production. That is what is so problematic with Cameron's policy. Who decides what is porn? Is it only text thats identify themselves as the genre porn? Or you do censor whatever an official rules as pornographic?

 

[TRF_heineken]

haha yep, lived in Montreal for a couple of years...best years of my life.
And yes, it's the accent from peasants during the Medieval times, mixed with some notes of American phonetic similarities. It's pretty bad, but there's worse. The Cajuns from Southern USA. It's barely recognizable.




:lol:
...that I would...


Oh and, about the whole pointless and perfectly sterile "what is pron and what isn't" argument, let me make it as simple as possible:
* if you see dicks and/or vaginas (...or buttholes), it's pron. Chances are if you see all that, they're masturbating or actually doing it somehow.
* If it's just suggestive sexual intercourse and you don't actually see the genitalia, it's erotic crap.

There...

WTF is Pron??

Here is the difference based on a recent court ruling in SA:

"There is a clear distinction between what is erotic and what is pornographic. Pornography's objective is the graphic depiction of sexually explicit scenes. It is a detailed and naturalistic image, a verbal description or a demonstration of a sexual intercourse and/or genitals with an end purpose to arouse sexual excitement in a human being, usually, in exchange for money. It can also be exploitative or degrading. Its symbolic content is very limited and focused on sex only. Erotica's objective, on the other hand is the portrayal of human anatomy and sexuality in a more multi-layered and polysemic way. It seeks to tell a story with sexual themes and evocative imagery. Its purpose is to explore desire, love, sexuality, human anatomy and passion through mystery and intrigue. It is because of these clear dissimilitudes which we can define them as separate entities."

This was based on a court order when a TV company wanted to launch 3 porn channels. The first for South Africa, and the Churches, Woman Activist Groups and some individuals went on a protest spree.

this was due to 2 reasons. 1 reason was, this channel will be 24-hours available, and they feared that children would be affected by it.
The other reason was that due to our country's high Rape-numbers, they feared that this exploitation could worsen the problem. Especially if the porn were S&M content.

Needless to say, the judge agreed with the activists on most points. so the Broadcaster must now come up with a better solution to the court as to the viewing, the content and the accessability.

That being said, a lot of movies and series gets shown during prime time, that consists of sex and nudity scenes, which to some conservative families are considered as pornography.

 

[Big Ewis]

it's like you're replying silly on purpose...
it's understood some form of sexual activity needs to take place, as stated in my post...
As for the rest of your post, are you having a laugh ? Using all those big words for no reason...I don't get if you're srs there...it seems you are.

"WHAT IS PORN" ? A question for the ages etc...and all that good stuff..


er.....it's ppl screwing with the genitalia showing......now come on boys, we can't be THAT bored....

On another note:
What is a book ?! What constitutes, allows for such a frame to exist; in such a format ? When is a book a book, and when is it not a book ? Who decides when there truly is an end to a book - do writings even really belong to their author ?
What is the letter 'A' ? Is it a mere component of language or a thing in itself, a noumenon ?...

fffffaakkin ******s...

 

[j'nuh]

er.....it's ppl screwing with the genitalia showing......now come on boys, we can't be THAT bored....

Just think, this time next year, British people won't have rugby nor porn.

 

[TRF_heineken]

"WHAT IS PORN" ? A question for the ages etc...and all that good stuff..


er.....it's ppl screwing with the genitalia showing......now come on boys, we can't be THAT bored....

Hmmm, I think you're wrong there again.

If you look at a pornstar's pictorial... it usually starts with her in clothes, no genitalia apparent in the photo... yet it's also considered Porn. Porn is also not just visual. For instance, some people consider 50 shades of grey as a porno... while others consider it as erotica. it depends on the subjective view of people to some extent...

 

[nickdnz]

it's like you're replying silly on purpose...
it's understood some form of sexual activity needs to take place, as stated in my post...
As for the rest of your post, are you having a laugh ? Using all those big words for no reason...I don't get if you're srs there...it seems you are.

"WHAT IS PORN" ? A question for the ages etc...and all that good stuff..

I was being a bit 'wanky' but the 'biggest word' is philisophical. Sorry if it scared you. I can try explain it monosyllabically for you. In terms of what I was actually saying, I am serious. I study media theory - so it's an interesting question to me. Once again - I can name you many movies, some arty and some mainstream which show male and and female genetalia and the act of intercourse - but its genre is not classified as porn, and I don't believe the intent was what heineken describes. I thought you'd like the wanky stuff anyway yoe, its all from Michel Foucault "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History" - the only Frenchman who was as obsessed with anal sex as you are.

Here is the difference based on a recent court ruling in SA:

"There is a clear distinction between what is erotic and what is pornographic. Pornography's objective is the graphic depiction of sexually explicit scenes. It is a detailed and naturalistic image, a verbal description or a demonstration of a sexual intercourse and/or genitals with an end purpose to arouse sexual excitement in a human being, usually, in exchange for money. It can also be exploitative or degrading. Its symbolic content is very limited and focused on sex only. Erotica's objective, on the other hand is the portrayal of human anatomy and sexuality in a more multi-layered and polysemic way. It seeks to tell a story with sexual themes and evocative imagery. Its purpose is to explore desire, love, sexuality, human anatomy and passion through mystery and intrigue. It is because of these clear dissimilitudes which we can define them as separate entities."


That being said, a lot of movies and series gets shown during prime time, that consists of sex and nudity scenes, which to some conservative families are considered as pornography.

Really interesting description - but I think you yourself show the problem with that. For a start I disagree with there being a dichotomy between porn and erotica. For example a producer may was to create a porn movie which perfectly fits the description of pornography - while the director may be attempting to produce the definition of erotica. There isn't necessarily only one discourse in any production - and a text can be read differently from its production to its dissemination and consumption. As you mention one audience may evaluate the intention of the text very differently than another. So to get very post-structuralist - pornography exists as a discursive production rather than anything with an innate truth - as even that definition which seems comprehensive, isn't going to be agreed upon by everyone.

 

[Big Ewis]

I was being a bit 'wanky' but the 'biggest word' is philisophical. Sorry if it scared you. I can try explain it monosyllabically for you. In terms of what I was actually saying, I am serious. I study media theory - so it's an interesting question to me. Once again - I can name you many movies, some arty and some mainstream which show male and and female genetalia and the act of intercourse - but its genre is not classified as porn, and I don't believe the intent was what heineken describes. I thought you'd like the wanky stuff anyway yoe, its all from Michel Foucault "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History" - the only Frenchman who was as obsessed with anal sex as you are.

Foucault's fine, but you're terribly wrong there though ! Look up Jean-Yves Lecastel !!
I'm not sure what "philisophical" is...but if you mean "philosophy", then it does ring a bell, m'yesss...it was my major for 2 years some time ago before I had to quit uni urgently...And the real thing though, not the 'wanky' stuff you're spewing here just quoting you, don't get all angry !!

Anyways, the larger point is clear, but as always some of you reply pedantically to the small irrelevant elements in my posts:
obviously when you see pron, you know it's pron right. When you watch Lex Steele impale, and then Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd running after each other, you realize what is what. Things in life are simple, and distinct...

If there's something, Nick, that contains 'phalluses' and vaginas and they're having actual sex then it's necessarily in the realm of pron. Unless it's for scientific purposes I suppose. Then it's scientific...; in that the focus isn't entertainment, it's scientific/study oriented.
If a director of "regular" films includes a scene with cuks and ppoossies and the people screwing, then it's the inclusion of a pron scene in a regular film, simply. There's absolutely no need to depict so graphically the act, and therefor there is a conscious intention from the director (or screenplay writer) to go that graphic, and if the actors are actually having sex then it's pron.

Some of you make it sound like it's this impossible task to distinctively separate pron from some other genres...let's stay simple, down to Earth and straight to the point is all I'm saying, and nobody's seeing that. It's interesting...
I think some you guys are just trying to milk a legit conversation out of this ^_^

 

[TRF_heineken]

Foucault's fine, but you're terribly wrong there though ! Look up Jean-Yves Lecastel !!
I'm not sure what "philisophical" is...but if you mean "philosophy", then it does ring a bell, m'yesss...it was my major for 2 years some time ago before I had to quit uni urgently...And the real thing though, not the 'wanky' stuff you're spewing here just quoting you, don't get all angry !!

Anyways, the larger point is clear, but as always some of you reply pedantically to the small irrelevant elements in my posts:
obviously when you see pron, you know it's pron right. When you watch Lex Steele impale, and then Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd running after each other, you realize what is what. Things in life are simple, and distinct...

If there's something, Nick, that contains 'phalluses' and vaginas and they're having actual sex then it's necessarily in the realm of pron. Unless it's for scientific purposes I suppose. Then it's scientific...; in that the focus isn't entertainment, it's scientific/study oriented.
If a director of "regular" films includes a scene with cuks and ppoossies and the people screwing, then it's the inclusion of a pron scene in a regular film, simply. There's absolutely no need to depict so graphically the act, and therefor there is a conscious intention from the director (or screenplay writer) to go that graphic, and if the actors are actually having sex then it's pron.

Some of you make it sound like it's this impossible task to distinctively separate pron from some other genres...let's stay simple, down to Earth and straight to the point is all I'm saying, and nobody's seeing that. It's interesting...
I think some you guys are just trying to milk a legit conversation out of this ^_^

I stopped reading at "I dropped out of university"

 

[j'nuh]

If a director of "regular" films includes a scene with cuks and ppoossies and the people screwing, then it's the inclusion of a pron scene in a regular film, simply. There's absolutely no need to depict so graphically the act, and therefor there is a conscious intention from the director (or screenplay writer) to go that graphic, and if the actors are actually having sex then it's pron.

Sometimes there is a need for it to be so graphic. Whatever you think about these movies, movies like Antichrist, Boys Don't Cry and Irreversible have to have graphic sex scenes. It's a stylistic choice that is meant to add to the film on an artistic level.

 

[Draggs]

Sometimes there is a need for it to be so graphic. Whatever you think about these movies, movies like Antichrist, Boys Don't Cry and Irreversible have to have graphic sex scenes. It's a stylistic choice that is meant to add to the film on an artistic level.

Irreversible, now that is a ****ing weird film.

 

[Big Ewis]

Sometimes there is a need for it to be so graphic. Whatever you think about these movies, movies like Antichrist, Boys Don't Cry and Irreversible have to have graphic sex scenes. It's a stylistic choice that is meant to add to the film on an artistic level.

Sure friend. No problem there....but it's pron.
And I don't believe - though this is an entire (and far more interesting, btw) topic of its own - that after a certain point, one can call certain things "art".
No offense, I really mean no offense to anyone here; but I know some wasteful replies will follow so I won't start this conversation on here. But there are horror movies, and then there's just torture pron. There's artistic depiction of certain realities, and then there's just filming people who torture each other in the most realistic (and therefor, un-artistic) way possible.

I understand realism in cinema is a tool, an end even. No problem...but there's a point where you're just recreating the horrors of the very, actual act as it happens in real life, on screen. That is not art anymore. Aristotle had very interesting things to say about this, but it's hardly the point.

The point, that keeps some relevance to this current topic, is this:
if you do *actual sex with genitalia showing* in a movie, you've just basically added a sheer pron scene to an otherwise non-pron movie. That's it...simple stuff.

Because artistically, from an objective standpoint: you can handle the scene which ever way you like, from very very implied to very crude, but if you've got a scene with no music and a straight camera angle with nothing but two ppl screwing, it's pron. There's a point where it is clearly, and objectively, not art anymore, because devoid of any artistic means/tools/procedures, or very very little to the point where it's not a sex scene...it's pron.

There, hope that's clear enough.
Guys who know Cannibal Holocaust, Salo and co. will see my point, though you may disagree, which I'm honestly not interested in...sorry.

 

[psychic duck]

.Deleted post.

 

[nickdnz]

Foucault's fine, but you're terribly wrong there though ! Look up Jean-Yves Lecastel !!
I'm not sure what "philisophical" is...but if you mean "philosophy", then it does ring a bell, m'yesss...it was my major for 2 years some time ago before I had to quit uni urgently...And the real thing though, not the 'wanky' stuff you're spewing here just quoting you, don't get all angry !!

Anyways, the larger point is clear, but as always some of you reply pedantically to the small irrelevant elements in my posts:
obviously when you see pron, you know it's pron right. When you watch Lex Steele impale, and then Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd running after each other, you realize what is what. Things in life are simple, and distinct...

If there's something, Nick, that contains 'phalluses' and vaginas and they're having actual sex then it's necessarily in the realm of pron. Unless it's for scientific purposes I suppose. Then it's scientific...; in that the focus isn't entertainment, it's scientific/study oriented.
If a director of "regular" films includes a scene with cuks and ppoossies and the people screwing, then it's the inclusion of a pron scene in a regular film, simply. There's absolutely no need to depict so graphically the act, and therefor there is a conscious intention from the director (or screenplay writer) to go that graphic, and if the actors are actually having sex then it's pron.

Some of you make it sound like it's this impossible task to distinctively separate pron from some other genres...let's stay simple, down to Earth and straight to the point is all I'm saying, and nobody's seeing that. It's interesting...
I think some you guys are just trying to milk a legit conversation out of this ^_^

I guess the difference between you and I - is I didn't drop out and instead study media studies at post-graduate level.

phil·o·soph·i·cal (f

l

-s

f

-k

l) also phil·o·soph·ic (-

k)adj.1. Of, relating to, or based on a system of philosophy.
2. Characteristic of a philosopher, as in equanimity, enlightenment, and wisdom.



And no I totally disagree that 'pron' is destinct fom other genres. You say "its a porn scene from a non-porn movie" - that doesn't work. Otherwise every porn movie could be could a light comedy or w/e with a very long porn scene. There is something called generic mixing in films - and genres within films are almost always debatable.

I'd be suprised from your reaction if you've read any Foucault. Part of his study of genealogy is looking how things which are considered innate (which he argues any cultural product or practice isn't) are instead discursively produced and created as a part of the context within the culture.

 

[LittleGuy]

haha yep, lived in Montreal for a couple of years...best years of my life.
And yes, it's the accent from peasants during the Medieval times, mixed with some notes of American phonetic similarities. It's pretty bad, but there's worse. The Cajuns from Southern USA. It's barely recognizable.




:lol:
...that I would...


Oh and, about the whole pointless and perfectly sterile "what is pron and what isn't" argument, let me make it as simple as possible:
* if you see dicks and/or vaginas (...or buttholes), it's pron. Chances are if you see all that, they're masturbating or actually doing it somehow.
* If it's just suggestive sexual intercourse and you don't actually see the genitalia, it's erotic crap.

There...

Yeah it's almost hard to beleive there are some French speakers still there after two centuries of near constant assimilation. Oddly enough a small city near me Welland, has a number of French speakers, they moved down decades ago to work in steel and you can occasionally hear French spoken in the city at restauraunts etc.