Iceland tries to ban porn and prostitution - will it work?

Post Reply New Topic

No - the opposition party in Iceland is called the Independence Party (and they are the natural governing party of Iceland). They are centre-right, economically liberal and tenaciously anti-EU (when they get into office, they will withdraw Iceland's EU membership application, which is in line with the majority of the Icelandic public's views). I can't think why I'd like them.

The current governing party, the Social Democratic Alliance (which is in coalition with some smaller parties), wants Iceland to join the EU.

A large majority of Icelanders do not want to join the EU.

If you read the article you'll see that it's violent and degrading pornography they want to ban, not all porn

As it's invariably women who are on the receiving end of some sick f-k's desire to re-enact the sick porn he's been watching, I think it's a good idea

Perhaps a few more men need to be sexually tortured and murdered before you get the idea of it not being a good thing to promote!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-14904647

"Vincent Tabak viewed violent internet pornography depicting men holding women by the neck in the weeks after he killed his Bristol neighbour Jo Yeates, it has emerged.

During legal arguments in his trial, prosecutors revealed videos and pictures found on his laptop and work computer depicted a man holding a woman's neck during sex and images of other women tied up in car boots.

Prosecutors believed that the pornographic films showed why Tabak held Miss Yeates by the neck - which led to her death."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... films.html

"Vincent Tabak 'developed sexual fetish after watching violent porn films'

Vincent Tabak, who has been found guilty of murdering Joanna Yeates, regularly viewed violent pornographic films featuring women being choked, The Daily Telegraph can today reveal."

How dare people go on about their 'rights' to watch this disgusting type of porn being impinged on - Joanna Yates suffered the ultimate imposition - on her right to f-king well stay alive and enjoy her life!

Think about her when you whine about your pathetic activity being regulated in a responsible manner for once!

Well, whichever party gets in, I'm sure they will ruin things in their own unique way, until the bored and subdued electorate decide it's time for a change. Again.
Returning to the topic at hand, the talk of banning "violent and degrading" porn is a bit too vague and meaningless for me.
Who gets to decide what "degrading" means? And who is to say they are right? There is plenty of porn around that features pain and humiliation, but carried out between consenting adults. It's fair enough to see that such things won't be to everyone's taste, and many people will be unable to see where the appeal lies for those that like it, but the individual should be able to choose. The "Won't someone think of the children?" line that is being spouted is ridiculous. Yes, children are currently easily able to view porn, but an outright ban to prevent such access is simply overkill. If a country has the ability the block pornographic websites, then it also has the ability to tag certain websites as "adult only", and create a very simple means for a user to identify themselves as above the approved age. An internet equivalent of putting magazines on the top shelf, if you will.

Depending on how that is drawn, that could very easily mean an awful lot of porn.

A lot of BDSM can very easily fall under this remit (some women freely participate in some horrifyingly brutal stuff, yet they love it), and it could even mean 'rough sex' in mainstream pornography. Then there's piss play, scat play, vomit play, necro play, rape fantasies and so on.

What is "violent and degrading" to one person is something that another woman absolutely loves. (If you look at rape fantasy boards, there seems to be every bit as many women as men on there - and some of them have actually been raped in real life. That doesn't mean they want to be raped, though.)

It's a stupid idea for many different reasons, not least that it will have the effect of policing people's sexual fantasies and activities.

Banning porn like that will not stop a thing. Violent predators tend to be violent predators in any case, and pornography in most cases is neither here nor there. In many instances, it might actually help people to get any latent fantasies they have off their chests, rather than repressing it.

I disagree

You are seeking to normalise the perverse

there is a link between watching violent sadistic porn and people acting on it - there have been a number of crimes where this has happened

we aren't talking everyone doing it but enough disturbed people to make it worth banning the nasty stuff to keep people safer in my opinion

some of us are more concerned for the impact this stuff has on society whereas the people who watch porn are usually only concerned with satisfying their own selfish desires

I know which type of person I'd rather be

Anyone who gets offf on watching women being hurt and humiliated is sick in my opinion - do you enjoy watching stuff like that?
does anyone on here?

if not what's your problem with banning it?

Well, I suppose we might check the statistics over the number of women violently sexually assaulted, both before and after such porn became widely available...

Iceland doesn't sound like a very nice place, tbh:

Because if you don't want to have sex with anyone, there's something seriously wrong with you...?

In such a sex-obsessed culture, I really don't think they'll succeed in stopping porn and prostitution, although if, like they sound like, they are the Bonobos of the North, then why anyone would pay for it is beyond me...

What's the point of keeping porn away from the eyes of children, when you're going to tell them to seek it anyway? At least they could make up their minds about whether it's good or not...

"What's the point of keeping porn away from the eyes of children, when you're going to tell them to seek it anyway?"

Who's telling them to seek out porn?!

Saying sex is an enjoyable activity is hardly the same as advocating porn!

I love how people equate completely unconnected things like this - it makes rational debate impossible!

If you have an enjoyable sex life you don't need porn!

Saying you like porn and watch it a lot is tantamount to saying you're not getting sex at all or if you are that it's
not very good

And remember we're talking about adults far more than children - it's the adults who commit the sex crimes, not usually the children

It's not good for children to see porn as a normal aspect of life but it gets far more dangerous when adults think the stuff they see in porn is something to try out on a stranger they decide to abduct!

Anyone who rates porn has not only a complete lack of imagination but they have a pretty soulless attitude towards sex too!

An intelligent person will not find porn interesting

Okay, so why do people seek out porn? I don't actually know, but I think it's because they want sex but can't get it to satisfy them. Surely, then, if you're telling people to seek out sex (as the Icelandic education system apparently does), then you shouldn't be surprised to seek out porn as a substitute...

I find it odd that you claim sex and porn are completely unrelated. Perhaps you could make that claim about apples and desks, but sex and porn are more like apples and pears, surely, with one being a second-rate substitute for the other? Except I only like apples, and have no interest for the other 3 things... :p

Good luck. Obviously, no such study exists...

... oh, wait...

http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/pornography.pdf

Not all rape cases even reach court and I certainly wouldn't trust the police to record it accurately either!

One person's life lost to someone spurred on by this type of porn is too much and that's happened so
these stats are meaningless

You keep watching your sick porn though, I'd hate to deprive you of your jollies

One person's life lost as a result of banning this type of porn is one too many, and since that's what happens, your argument is meaningless.

Statistics are meaningless when dealing with an individual case. They are invaluable when dealing with legislation. You can't base law on emotion...

I'm not understanding your point

You appear to be defending sick porn, which implies to me that you like watching it and are ok with others watching it

Do you have a line that you draw in what you watch btw or is it literally anything?

I'm pretty sure there's enough cases to make legislation

The trouble is there's too much money in porn and money wins over morality every time

It also has the advantage of not being subjective, like morality is.

I'm not surprised.


See my previous post.

This is hilarious.