Indeed, look at the Gay Times front cover on the Wikipedia page. This could effect far more than the 'lad's mags.'

I wonder what effect this will have on Gay Times. Look at their Wikipedia page for a front cover.

But I can assure that is the ultimate aim. Object said they weren't campaigning for strip clubs to be prohibited, only to be regulated and licensed by local councils. A law was passed to that effect. Object then campaigned for every council to implement a policy of not even considering granting licenses.

Object has an interesting way of tackling porn and sex entertainment establishments. They don't aim for prohibition, only regulation to strangle their target to death. They campaigned, for instance, to have strip clubs require a license from the local council (before this all they needed was license for…

The Conservative Party? They seem to take most of their policies from the front page of the Mail.

I don't get the hate either. No person should ever be put in a position where they have to consider whether a body part should be removed or not to prevent or cure a disease.

Jez's stance does seem contradictory.

Can Jezebel give us a description of its stance on pornography?

You've noticed that too? That a certain number of unwritten rules seem to be alluded to in regards to how a feminist or woman should act lately.

Indeed, if you accept that sexual imagery in games can make people sexist or offends people to the degree that it must be censored, then you open the door for those who argue that violent/gory content must also be censored.

The 'city' of LA didn't care. It was the AHF who pushed for a vote on the matter. AHF had to apply to is contest the freedom of speech angle pushed by the porn industry currently in court because the city didn't want to.

The actual law itself incorporates regulations that go way beyond condoms. As they were intended for medical research, medical disposal and the like, if it were implemented to the letter it could require porn to be filmed with all goggles and other barriers.

Unless they want to sell it.

Your post highlights what I've been thinking. Why can 9 out of 10 kids (for example) see X, Y and Z, and not be compelled to commit a crime, but the remaining kid is compelled? It's definitely not a one to one relationship between cause and effect, so what are the missing variables that get lost in the blame game?

I believe that in the UK that is the law. If you have sex with someone who has been coerced into prostitution you are guilty of rape and having no knowledge of that coercion is not a defence.

While aspects of the media probably do have input into the thinking behind these crimes, why do some who live in the same environment and exposed to the same media commit crimes like this and others don't?

Wasn't there some hubbub when someone suggested that it should an Olympic sport? I seem to remember someone being displeased at attempts to 'legitimise' pole dancing as if it was a sexual and degrading thing regardless of the context.

Just to clarify - does the law forbid the posting of nude images without consent absolutely, or is the posting of identifying information also required for it to be a crime?

The same can be asked about their advice about many other things I suppose, marriage for example. Perhaps employment too.

Why do I get the feeling that if the Church could impose it somehow, it would demand cameras in every room?