Where does one draw the line between consensual and wrong? This is something that pops into my head from time to time and to which I find no easy answer. What defines harm? And what about individual rights?
Today's news story reminds me of a case not so long ago arguing about the persecution of virtual child pornography. As well as the Spanner Case which was a test case helping to set the law in the UK in regards to violent pornography and acts of consensual sexual violence.
There are certain things that people can agree upon, but then, the lines get very hazy. Child pornography? Wrong. So wrong. Completely, totally and utterly wrong. So then what about all the porn sites that portray 'young' models? Or of age women who dress (and may have the body appearance of) a child. Should that be banned?
What if you remove the sexuality aspect? What about things like pro-anorexia sites. Or people who self-harm? Generally those are agreed upon as wrong. But then.... what about violent sexual acts? By default is that also harm or is it exempt because it's something else?
I suppose what worries me is the mystery line on what is deemed 'violent'. I have seen violent porn that has not in any way appealed. I have also just seen disgusting porn that did not in any way appeal. But who gets to make the determination? What if you like things I don't? And what about when everyone involved is a consenting adult. What are your rights over your own body?
Difficult questions these. Without easy answers. But worrisome. Very worrisome when people want to 'ban' things that other people do as consenting adults that don't harm anyone other than themselves, if it even harms them at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment