*Extreme* Porn

This one slipped under the radar a little bit for me, but I’ve noted that the government have again had their banning boots one, and have banned *extreme* pornography. Regardless of whether you like, dislike, or were even completely unaware of extreme porn, this should irritate you. As it demonstrates just how much the government is prepared to intervene in your life. Gordon Brown feels he has a right to decide what you do and what you don’t wank over. Of course, some will not see it in this way…

“Quite right they banned it,” you might hear a tedious Sun reader booming, in their unintelligent yet demanding voices that come from those who are so ignorant that they have no idea just how ignorant they actually are, “I don’t want to watch what those bloody pervs get up to!”

The immediate response to anyone who thinks like this is, of course, you don’t have to. No-one is forcing people to watch extreme pornography. Or any sort of pornography, come to think of it. Seriously, no-one. It is like those fuckwitted racists who go “yeah, but I don’t want to celebrate Ramadan in this country.” Fine. Fine. You don’t have to.

Plus, sexuality is a broad thing. Different things work for different people. Just a glance at the top shelf in any newsagent demonstrates this. You might not get turned on by Fat and Fifty*. It might make you feel a bit sick. But the fact that it doesn’t turn you on doesn’t make it bad, or something that should be banned. After all, it was only a few decades ago that homosexuality was considered evil and immoral, and was completely illegal. The general sway of society should be towards making society more liberal, not less so. People should be allowed to get on with whatever they like in the bedroom, no matter how weird or funny or demented it might seem, as long as it is taking place between consenting adults. The same goes for porn. Even if someone is jerking themselves off to something that is not mainstream, it doesn’t matter. As long as that wank material was produced by consenting adults.

“Yeah, but that ain’t the point, is it?” the Sun reader might protest. “That sort of porn isn’t like Juicy Jugs. It makes people go out and do weird stuff. It makes people go out and kill.”

At which point you’re probably talking about the murder of Jane Longhurst by a disturbed individual who watch violent porn. The problem is that there is no link between porn, or violent films, or anything that is not exactly mainstream and those commit murders. In fact, if anything, porn and violent movies can act as an outlet for the disturbed. It is also not just violence that attracts those of a disturbed nature. After all, Jeffrey Dahmer was obsessed by Return of the Jedi.

Which leads us onto the key point for me. The perfect illustration of why this law - and so many other examples of what some refer to as bansturbation – is the question of when you stop banning stuff. Because you Sun reader might argue that it is ok to ban violent porn even if a minority does suffer.

But this doesn’t answer the question of where you stop. Because the law talks about acts that not only do threaten life and cause serious injury, but also those that appear to. Mainstream cinema could be easily affected by this. Take Pierrepoint, a film filled with executions. That could be titillating for some. Whatcha gonna do? Prosecute every Blockbuster franchise with a copy of that grim little film in it? What about The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson’s astoundingly popular torture fest? That contains a nearly nude man being tortured graphically before being executed horrifically. Are you going to ban that as well?

What about the films that depict graphic torture and violence? As artistically vacuous as they are, does anyone really think that the mindless Hostel series should be banned? The films of Rob Zombie are littered with acts of torture, often against a back drop of sexual encounters. Yes, they are about as enjoyable to watch as it is enjoyable to bathe in bleach. But they have substantial followings. Followings of people who don’t go out and murder.

And it is not just horror films. Other films depict savage violence and torture, and could potentially fall foul of these laws. Dennis Potter’s work often has a high sexual content in it, and this content includes rape and sexually motivated murder. Yet Potter’s work is still (rightly) highly respected. Are we going to ban that? What about Casino Royale? The scene at the end where Bond is tortured in the nude in (for a man) an outrageously painful way must also be on the cusp of the legislation. Are we going to see people prosecuted for owning that film? Because, as a blockbuster film, there are going to be a lot of people (including your humble author) who could be prosecuted for that. And finally, the final confrontation between Idi Amin and the protagonist of The Last King Of Scotland is a scene of graphic, excruciating torture to a man’s chest. This probably would fall foul of the new laws. So there we go. We should ban an Oscar winning classic of a film, because it contains a scene of horrific torture that accurately reflects what went on under Amin.

Ultimately, the government is deciding what you should and what you shouldn’t find arousing. Mags called things like Fanny Flaps will never be banned by the government, even if they do disapprove of it, because they see the presentations of sexuality within that to be acceptably mainstream. However they will ban anything they deem to be extreme, and use the age old “well, it could influence somebody” argument, even though there is no evidence that extreme porn or violent films make it any more likely that someone will commit and act of violence that the wank worn copy of Knockers and Minge.

This piece of legislation is not a million miles away from implementing the Sex Police. And the question everyone wants to ask themselves is this: do you really want Gordon Brown, a man who probably thinks seven – rather than five – minutes in the missionary position is a good but extreme fuck deciding what you can and cannot do with a consenting partner in the comfort of their own bedroom?

If the answer is “no” then you should oppose this legislation. Let people do whatever they want in their bedrooms and, as an extension of that, let them choose whatever they want – as long as it depicts acts between consenting adults – to toss themselves off to.

*FYI, all the porn mag names in this post are made up. Apologies if there are jazz mags out there with similar titles; rest assured, I am not dissing your no doubt extremely interesting publications.