1 May 10, 7:04 PM
El_Presidente
UK(G), 4 yrs
   |
Neophites_jewel wrote:
i saw it mentioned on You Have Been Watching the other night as well and haven't been able to get it out of my head - intensely disturbing concept, and wouldn't consider it pornographic in the least.
*shudder*
|
It is a pretty disgusting concept.
I mean, how would they brush their teeth? 
"Never do today what you can do tomorrow"
|
1 May 10, 8:51 PM
emark
UK, 9 yrs |
popi wrote:
Is the definition of porn decided by the producer or if you watch it with your hands down your knickers? |
It's decided by the jury - whether they think it was intended to arouse, based on looking the image (or the context in a series of images if it forms part of a series). Curiously, it seems that neither the _actual_ intent of the producer, or whether you were really getting off on it, are things that the jury should base their opinion on.
From the Act:
An image "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal"; "the question whether the image is [pornographic] is to be determined by reference to (a) the image itself, and (b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images."
spirifer wrote:
Anyway, is this film "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal"? I'd say not, unless you're aroused by craptastic shit about eating shit.
|
Well indeed I think this is one of the contradicting things about the whole law - that an image is simultaneously being viewed as disgusting, abhorrent etc, but also something that must have been intended to arouse. I guess the resolution to the contradiction is that they know or assume that other people must be getting off on it (whether or not that was the reason why the person possesses it).
ClassAct2005 wrote:
Also I wouldn't want it banned. I wouldn't watch. I won't even watch standard horror films as I've no interest in them but I don't see why others can't. |
I agree entirely. Pointing out the inconsistency in the law if such films are legally available is a perfectly valid argument. But I'm not going to get out the pitchforks against it - I would still disagree that things should be banned for adults. It's possible to believe that something is disgusting, without believing it should be illegal for other people to view it. (Personally there are lots of things I don't like - things involving insects, preaching fundamentalist religion, and party political broadcasts from the Conservative Party.)
Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement
Edited 1 May 10, 8:54 PM by emark
|
1 May 10, 10:09 PM
Bambi_x
UK(NW), 2 yrs
|
Oh my...
What the...
Seriously...?
*feels sick* |
1 May 10, 11:20 PM
Mr_Frost
UK(PL), 3 yrs
|
Shocking, disgusting, creepy, offensive.....I absolutely refuse to watch it more then twice! - Master of posting at the bottom of a page -
|
1 May 10, 11:31 PM
scraps
UK(RG), 5 yrs
|
I've a friend that did some of the video effects on this film...so many shades of wrong!
Bad reality! |
1 May 10, 11:44 PM
ClassAct2005
UK(N), 7 yrs
|
Yes, I don't think anyone would assume it was principally made to arouse. That's the key thing.
So if I film beheadings in Saudi and sell them back here labelled - "sexy death scenes" then that might breach the rules. If I'm a BBC reporter filming them for non sexual purposes then possessing my BBC film is not.
If I film childbirth to teach doctors that is not intended to arouse. If I film women being cut in childbirth so people can masturbate watching it rather than learn how to be better doctors then that breaches the rules.
emark wrote:
popi wrote:
Is the definition of porn decided by the producer or if you watch it with your hands down your knickers? |
It's decided by the jury - whether they think it was intended to arouse, based on looking the image (or the context in a series of images if it forms part of a series). Curiously, it seems that neither the _actual_ intent of the producer, or whether you were really getting off on it, are things that the jury should base their opinion on.
From the Act:
An image "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal"; "the question whether the image is [pornographic] is to be determined by reference to (a) the image itself, and (b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images."
spirifer wrote:
Anyway, is this film "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal"? I'd say not, unless you're aroused by craptastic shit about eating shit.
|
Well indeed I think this is one of the contradicting things about the whole law - that an image is simultaneously being viewed as disgusting, abhorrent etc, but also something that must have been intended to arouse. I guess the resolution to the contradiction is that they know or assume that other people must be getting off on it (whether or not that was the reason why the person possesses it).
ClassAct2005 wrote:
Also I wouldn't want it banned. I wouldn't watch. I won't even watch standard horror films as I've no interest in them but I don't see why others can't. |
I agree entirely. Pointing out the inconsistency in the law if such films are legally available is a perfectly valid argument. But I'm not going to get out the pitchforks against it - I would still disagree that things should be banned for adults. It's possible to believe that something is disgusting, without believing it should be illegal for other people to view it. (Personally there are lots of things I don't like - things involving insects, preaching fundamentalist religion, and party political broadcasts from the Conservative Party.)
|
|
1 May 10, 11:45 PM
MistressNikki
UK(SE), 9 yrs
|
Saw the trailer on You tube.
The first section is straight out of Rocky Horror. Seriously.
2 kids, road trip, rain, flat-tyre, trip through the woods, knock at door, which is answered by scary bloke.
from there in though, eeeeewwwww!!!!
That, and the trailer seems to contain the "best" bits. No suspense there!
and yes, they ban "extreme porn" yet allow this far worse menace to thrive.
*shakes head* Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective & permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment
|
1 May 10, 11:48 PM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs
|
How is it a menace? It's just gross is all. Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: Why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: Why not marry safe science if you love it so much.
|
2 May 10, 2:56 AM
Anansie
3 yrs
|
I don't know what's funnier, this thread or that movie...
well the movie is gross but i laughed (...what's wrong with me)...then again I laughed when a guy had his head smashed in with a fire extinguisher in "Irréversible" and you could actually see the damage develop into mush.
virtual reality versus reality etc.
But yeah, I don't think it would really stand up to comparison with extreme porn.
...unless you're a bit scatty... |
2 May 10, 3:04 AM
madman1
2 yrs
|
sounds like a load of rubbish to me-then again 90% of horror films today are absolute trash |
