By John Q. Hosedrinker 
New amendments to the Crime and Policing bill will criminalize pornography featuring strangulation or suffocation, requiring tech platforms to prevent UK users from accessing such content. This follows recommendations from a government review highlighting the normalization of strangulation and its associated dangers, including potential brain damage. Simultaneously, the time limit for prosecuting victims of intimate image abuse will be extended from six months to three years. Platforms failing to comply with the ban on choking content will face significant fines, emphasizing the government’s commitment to combating online misogyny and the harmful effects of violent pornography.
Read the original article here
Pornography depicting strangulation to become a criminal offence in the UK, well, it seems the winds of change are blowing through the British Isles yet again. It’s a move that’s sparking a lot of debate, and frankly, I’ve got a lot of thoughts swirling around in my head about it. First off, it’s worth noting that this isn’t just some random issue pulled out of thin air. Research from a U.S. university actually found that a significant portion of women, and some men, report being choked during sex.
Strangulation, in general, has some seriously dark undertones. When it’s non-consensual, it’s a huge red flag for potential violence, even murder. But, consensually, it’s apparently a pretty common kink. So, the question is, where do you draw the line? That’s what makes this so complicated. And it’s not really easy to answer.
Regulating kinks in porn, when adult access to porn is already tightly controlled, seems a bit counterintuitive. You’d think the focus would be on keeping it away from children, which is, I suppose, the argument being made. As Bernie Ryan from the Institute For Addressing Strangulation points out, while consenting adults should be free to explore their sexuality, the risks of unregulated online content, especially for young people, are real. That’s a fair point. I can see where they are coming from.
The Institute For Addressing Strangulation, that’s a very specific organization to be concerned with. Makes you wonder if other types of violence get the same attention, or if there’s a certain focus at play. But hey, it’s their mission, and I am not a judge of that. And this move, which mirrors a similar suggestion from the Swedish Liberal party, is likely to have ripple effects. There is probably going to be a lot of editing going on.
The question of whether the move will be effective hangs in the air. The argument that it is to protect children is a well-worn one in these debates, as it often is. And it does make one pause. The logic does not necessarily line up. What is that if you have already prevented children from seeing the material in the first place? Some feel that the “think of the children” argument is being used, once again.
There’s a growing feeling that the UK is becoming more restrictive, particularly around personal freedoms. It’s interesting to contrast this with other countries. Some people even feel this approach to issues is just making things worse. It can backfire, drawing more attention to the very thing it’s trying to suppress. The Streisand effect, as it’s known, where trying to hide something just makes it more popular.
One of the problems here seems to be the lack of a clear definition. What exactly constitutes “strangulation”? Is it a hand on the neck for a few seconds? Or is it something more? These are the grey areas that will likely be debated in court if this law passes. The UK is probably a breeding ground for these kinds of challenges.
Others bring up a point that is relevant here. The question of whether this is the best use of time and resources. Rather than focusing on regulating what consenting adults do, perhaps the emphasis should be on protecting vulnerable individuals from real harm, such as sexual assault, and keeping those who commit such acts incarcerated for longer. Some, of course, would feel differently.
And of course, there’s the question of what to do about the underlying problem. Some feel that a better sex education is needed. How can we have conversations with young teenagers about sex in all its forms, and the dangers, risks, and benefits that come along with it? What are the boundaries, the things to avoid, and the safe practices to follow? It’s not about making these things illegal, they may argue, but educating people.
Then you have a more practical issue. How do you enforce a law like this? The details of this law, if passed, are going to be tricky. You’re talking about prosecuting someone for the content of their porn viewing? The UK is likely to see quite a bit of challenges to this.
It’s a complex issue with many facets, and there are strong opinions on both sides. Some people feel that it is simply a waste of time, and others feel that it is a positive change. Others, of course, feel that this is a dangerous restriction on personal freedoms. It seems that with all the viewpoints, it’s not really going to be a simple issue to resolve.