Simulated **** porn...

[ramabanana]

If a woman is ****** then obviously she cannot consent. So are websites like 'sleepcreep' simulated ****?

In the UK the creation or possesion of porn depicting real or simulated **** (and ******** - bdsm porn, and bdsm itself (see R v Brown)) is ******* in the UK.

When the laws on BDSM where introduced a number of organisations, including human rights group Liberty, argued that the issue should be about consent. They argued that sites should be required to do what kink.com do and have interviews at the start of a scene to show that what's happening is consensual.

So are sites like 'sleepcreep' promoting ****?

Personally I agree that the issue is about consent. If a site makes it clear that what is happening is a game/play (eg I don't get off on things like pornstar punishment but they make it clear that it's consensual) then thats ok but sites that promote non-consensual sex without provisos seem to be promoting ****.

 

[lurkingdirk]

This is a slippery slope, folks. Tread carefully, lest this thread be closed.

I think **** like sleepcreep, and so forth, are so obviously fake that there is no implied ****.

However, I'm also a complete asshat, so what do I know.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

I find anything to do with **** - simulated or not - to be utterly repugnant and I'm deeply uncomfortable seeing a thread like this, regardless of intent (that's not a swipe at the OP, just an IMO).

 

[ramabanana]

This is a slippery slope, folks. Tread carefully, lest this thread be closed.

I think **** like sleepcreep, and so forth, are so obviously fake that there is no implied ****.

However, I'm also a complete asshat, so what do I know.

Yes, they're obviously fake but my point is the acceptability of the site. If a site says 'this is a fantasy' then that's different to a site that says 'you don't need to worry about the consent of a ******** woman.'

 

[lurkingdirk]

Yes, they're obviously fake but my point is the acceptability of the site. If a site says 'this is a fantasy' then that's different to a site that says 'you don't need to worry about the consent of a ******** woman.'

True enough.

I'm all for closing down any site that simulates **** in any form.

 

[JacknCoke]

I am not sure if anyone is qualified to answer this on here outside of just giving their opinion unless we have some lawyers on this board?

 

[Connor Macleod]

I find anything to do with **** - simulated or not - to be utterly repugnant...

I agree completely. There is nothing entertaining about **** and any site that uses that as their hook to get customers, should be ****** and their servers set on fire!

PS - I'm gonna rep you on this, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow. The damn rep limit drives me crazy.

 

[ramabanana]

True enough.

I'm all for closing down any site that simulates **** in any form.

So if a site depicts non-consensual intercourse with a woman, ie **** in most jurisdictions, then you are opposed to them? And a site that shows women being ***** by men in their ***** surely meets this defintion, and so sites like 'sleepcreep' shouldn't be promoted by Freeones? Otherwise, please explain how having intercourse with a ******** woman can be considered consensual.

 

[ramabanana]

I am not sure if anyone is qualified to answer this on here outside of just giving their opinion unless we have some lawyers on this board?

5 years of law school. But I am posting on a porn forum so something must have gone wrong....

 

[JacknCoke]

5 years of law school. But I am posting on a porn forum so something must have gone wrong....

well not necessarily but your professional (or maybe semi professional not sure?) law opinion would hold a lot more weight then mine haha. Are you putting those 5 years to good use?

 

[lurkingdirk]

So if a site depicts non-consensual intercourse with a woman, ie **** in most jurisdictions, then you are opposed to them? And a site that shows women being ***** by men in their ***** surely meets this defintion, and so sites like 'sleepcreep' shouldn't be promoted by Freeones? Otherwise, please explain how having intercourse with a ******** woman can be considered consensual.

I'm going to make no judgments on what FreeOnes should, or should not, promote. I will say that I'd be in favour of simulated **** sites not being promoted here, but do you know what? I come here willingly. I'm quite the hypocrite if I'm going to condemn them for anything and then continue coming here.

People have different thresholds of tolerance. My threshold is entirely irrelevant to how this site is run. If they promote something that I'm so opposed to that I can't stand it, I better get the fuck out.

What you are comfortable with has no bearing on what is legal, on what sells, on what builds traffic to this site, or on what they allow so long as it is within the laws put forth.

Don't like that they promote a particular site? Go away. Want to continue being a member here? Allow them to promote what makes them money, builds their traffic, and promotes the site in general.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

5 years of law school. But I am posting on a porn forum so something must have gone wrong....

Or very, very right ..... I'd take a hooker or a porn star over a lawyer any day. At least with them, you know when you are being royally fucked, exactly what it will cost and that you stand a good chance of getting your money's worth

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Not my taste in porn but when I was engaged and woke up before my fiancee or if I got home late, I'd sometimes **** her up with a little pickle tickle. If I got no response I wouldn't push it any further (no pun intended).

 

[Rey C.]

I am not sure if anyone is qualified to answer this on here outside of just giving their opinion unless we have some lawyers on this board?

True. Let me send a link to this thread to Premium Link Upgrade . He's British. He's a lawyer. And I'd say that ol' boy knows more about S&M than anybody here.

As for the question, I really have no idea. I do know that in the 1980's (when Reagan's anti-porn Meese Commission was out in *****), depictions of sexual contact combined with bondage or S&M were prosecuted. A large mailorder house in New York, called Studio One, had to redo their catalog and delete any movies that had (potentially) offending material. Leisure Time Products also had to discontinue some of their video titles. A lot of movies from the 70's and early '80's fell into that category: "Her Name Was Lisa", "Prey of a Call Girl", "Jailhouse Girls", etc.

In the U.S. now, it seems like they're leaving it up to individual communities. Other than the Max Hardcore thing, I haven't heard about any prosecutions pushed by the feds. The UK may be VERY different. :dunno:

 

[ramabanana]

I'm going to make no judgments on what FreeOnes should, or should not, promote. I will say that I'd be in favour of simulated **** sites not being promoted here, but do you know what? I come here willingly. I'm quite the hypocrite if I'm going to condemn them for anything and then continue coming here.

People have different thresholds of tolerance. My threshold is entirely irrelevant to how this site is run. If they promote something that I'm so opposed to that I can't stand it, I better get the fuck out.

What you are comfortable with has no bearing on what is legal, on what sells, on what builds traffic to this site, or on what they allow so long as it is within the laws put forth.

Don't like that they promote a particular site? Go away. Want to continue being a member here? Allow them to promote what makes them money, builds their traffic, and promotes the site in general.

Point taken - but I was trying to create a debate on what is acceptable for porn. Unfortunately, porn and its boundaries are largely ignored by the media, with a misconstrued anti-porn lobby debating a defensive porn lobby.

The issue I raise is essentially that porn, like the free press, needs to establish it's own boundaries, lest they be determined by others

 

[RichardNailder]

Amazing how readily people are to remove freedoms from anyone and anything they don't agree with. Personally I find any situation that degrades another person repulsive but.... Simulated is the key phrase here...... If the site in question is indeed not ******* anyone to do anything against their will, then why would you want to forbid them the right of expression?

Using the example of kink.com - it's something that I would never personally watch or participate in - but I do know one of their male sub actors and he's very much ok with the things they do to him. Is it my place to take away his freedom?

What about the amateur couple that shoots a home video of his girlfriend coming home and waking him up to a surprise BJ? Should we ban that site too?

I'm fairly new here but I'm betting that no one here would enjoy waking up to Miss Hybrid sexually assaulting them in their *****. So - let's all ban the thought and no more dreaming of your favorite model doing naughty things to you while you ***** - after all, it might offend someone.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

So, OP, is this helping with your research?

 

[lurkingdirk]

Simulated is the key phrase here......

This is a really important point - if it isn't clear that it is simulated, then major issue need be taken, I think.

While I don't care much for even the simulated **** stuff, papagmp makes many good points.

 

[ramabanana]

Or very, very right ..... I'd take a hooker or a porn star over a lawyer any day. At least with them, you know when you are being royally fucked, exactly what it will cost and that you stand a good chance of getting your money's worth

First day of law postgrad school, employment law, we went around the class to discuss our experiences of employment.

One student worked on the checkouts at a supermarket durng the holidays. He said he was ****** to work longer than employment law said he should without a break. He told the class that he lodged a formal complaint, the silly working class woman with a ****** to feed, scared of losing her job, didn't understand the legalistic language he used had broke the law. He told the class that he reported her and never learned of the consequences as he returnred to uni. The class laughed...

That day I realised I didn't want to be a lawyerr.

 

[brodkill]

anything having to do with ****, even if it is obviously simulated, should be out lawed, and anyone that is involved in it should be put in jail for life