Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Generation Porn

From The Telegraph

A generation is growing up skewed by internet pornography, court hears, as 12-year-old who raped a schoolgirl is spared jail.

A generation of youngsters may be developing a skewed view of sex from pornography, a court has heard, after a 12-year-old schoolboy raped and sexually assaulted a younger girl after copying a hardcore film he watched on the internet.

This raises many questions. For good or ill in the UK the age of criminal responsibility is ten. Now the girl was nine so 7 years below the age of consent and fundamentally that would appear the issue here. So if the age of consent is a legal (though arbitary) fixed point why not the age of criminal responsibilty? How can a court recognise one but not the other?

Simples. It can blame this thing they call they internet. They can blame a vast impersonal external force that makes people do very bad things. This is much easier for many people to cope with than the fact that kids can be nasty. How nasty is interesting though here.

The High Court in Edinburgh heard the boy, now aged 14, was allowed “unfettered” access to adult websites before forcing a nine-year-old to perform a sex act on him.

Now considering a non-custodial sentence was imposed can we safely assume she was merely coerced into giving him a blow-job or even that this was a case of “show me yours and I’ll show you mine… going too far?”

Hard to tell but it is fairly obvious to me that at least The Telegraph and the perhaps the court put the internet on trial at least as much as the boy. And that worries me. Not because I look at porn but filters and opting-in to the “pervert list” provides government with the technology to filter or block… Well anything. A while back I posted the image of Leda ravished by the Zeus in swan form. I honestly couldn’t see that as porn as such. The Met told the gallery though that it was. Despite no complaints from the public. See how arbitrary it can be?

Is porn a skewed view of sexuality? Hmm… It is a highly stylized form. Nobody ever ejaculates in anyone in porn – the “money shot” is the money shot and must be seen. I don’t think anyone normal (whatever that means) gets their ideas of actual sex from porn. And I mean here porn marketed as porn and not stuff sold as high art or “sex scenes integral to the plot” or whatnot. Mostly I have to admit the later two categories I tend to find more arousing. This (oh, er missus!) raise an interesting question about porn. Essentially it’s definition is undefinable. It is all in the eye of the beholder. There are things that are undoubtedly generally considered obscene and that someone somewhere will get turned on by but don’t do it for me. The internet porn aggregation types will include categories like “ugly”. I guess porn is a great leveler here. Young, old, black, white, gay, straight, transexual, ginger, blonde or brunette someone will pay you to pleasure yourself with a root vegetable. Quite how the likes of Harriet Harman think this sexist (women in porn are generally better paid than men) or exploitative is beyond me.

What I think is up (oh er, missus!) is a sort of bizarre moral shift. Over the last few years in the UK we have seen a great deal of liberalisation of sex as like done but not as portrayed. Over the course of my adulthood the gay age of consent has dropped from 21 to 16 (same as the hetero one), the strict liabilty sodomy laws have been struck. Yes, technically (I do not recall any convictions, mind) buggering a woman consensually was illegal though you had a sort of “decriminalized” special dispensation for giving it up the arse to a geezer. This made no sense to me. So, I’m happy with the state of affairs now? No. It is even dafter because it seems to me legislation is like fighting an air-mattress. The minute you crush one side down the other goes up.

Tim Worstall has this.

On that post commentator Pogo sums it up almost in a nutshell in the comments.

The law has created the ludicrous situation where a pair of 16-year-olds can quite legally bonk themselves stupid but commit a serious offence should they decide to video their connubial bliss…

Not only that but with parental permission they can even be married! What Pogo in his short but sweet comment doesn’t mention is the criminal act is making the video (or taking a photo, or working up CGI or drawing a sketch…) not the distribution of this for money or larks. We essentially have a situation where a sixteen year old girl can give her boyfriend oral pleasure (which inevitably means seeing an erect penis very close-up and in 3D) but isn’t allowed to photograph the upstanding member purely for her own latter edification or indeed to look at other erect members in movies or magazines or via the internet. In a very real sense we have the perverse position that having sex is allowed before seeing sex is allowed and the seeing is more tightly regulated than the doing. The driving age in the UK is 17. This is much the same as saying you can legally drive a car at that age but you have to wait until you are 19 to watch that bumptious arse Clarkson on “Top Gear”.

Ultimately – I dunno – this is either stupidity, knee-jerk hatred of porn or a stalking horse for the state to control the internet which is where porn lives (and not under hedges like when I were a kid). Take your pick. It’s all either mad or bad or probably both.

Or is it just a rearguard action by the MSM against the internet?

10 Comments

  1. CM says:

    ‘ Nobody ever ejaculates in anyone in porn – the “money shot” is the money shot and must be seen.’

    Haven’t you heard of the ‘creampie’?

  2. HSLD says:

    Stalking horse to control the internet, with the Daily Mail as number one useful idiot.

  3. Lynne says:

    Ditto!

  4. “So if the age of consent is a legal (though arbitary) fixed point why not the age of criminal responsibilty? ”

    In Scotland the age of criminal responsibility is 12 years. In England it is 10 years. In North Carolina it’s 6 years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy#Ages_of_criminal_responsibility_by_country

  5. NickM says:

    Trooper that allows some fascinating opportunities for kids in Berwick.

    But why an age of criminal responsibility at all (or age of consent come to that)? Note the “an” there. I suspect different crimes, different acts ought to have different ones or be treated differently at least. What is a six-year-old likely to do? Steal sweeties? OK, here’s the solution: a parent frog-marches him down to the shop, remunerates the shop-keeper the sum stolen and has the kid apologise fully and then the parent punishes the kid suitably. A withdrawal of pocket money for a time and/or extra chores springs to mind. It is hardly a matter for the police is it?

  6. Roue le Jour says:

    There’s a perfectly good reason for fuck at sixteen but no photos until 18 and that is to prevent 16/17 y.o. girls being tricked or arm twisted into making porn movies. You may disagree with the means but the aim is reasonable enough.

    There is a fundamental problem with having an age of criminal responsibility that is lower than the age of consent, and that is it becomes logically possible to prosecute underage youngsters for committing crimes against themselves, (pedantically, to commit crimes in which they are the victim, as crimes are against the state, which of course owns their firm young flesh) as the ‘sexting’ row showed.

    As things stand, a fifteen y.o. girl who attends a party provocatively dressed and then gets pissed *could* be charged with aiding and abetting her own statutory rape.

  7. NickM says:

    Roue,
    Don’t get it. How is the lass more likely to be coerced into pr0n than just sex? My point is basically if it’s OK to do it it should be OK to film it otherwise you get into exactly the sort of silliness you mention as to being accessory to own’s own rape.

  8. Roue le Jour says:

    She isn’t. It’s the commercialisation that’s the issue. Girls under 18 can’t prostitute themselves or appear in pornography (same thing but with a camera). This removes the financial incentive for hairy-backed pimps and pornographers to seduce your 16 y.o. daughter. She can still have an ill advised liaison with said pervert, but cannot end up on a street corner or spread all over the internet.

    I’ll happily agree the enforcement is haphazard and heavy handed, but I agree with the principle. Saves me the trouble of putting people in the boot of the car and ditching it in the river.*

    *Get Carter. Never let an opportunity for a film ref pass by.

  9. Tim Newman says:

    Roue le Jour makes a good point. A 16 year old girl might be talked into having sex which she will regret, but she will likely get over it and move on. If there is a porn film out there of her in the act, it will be very difficult and simple regret turns into a lifelong regret. Never thought of it this way before.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: