Speaking as a man, I don't understand this attitude either. It applies beyond actual sex to other sexual matters too, strippers and porn stars for instance. I don't understand why someone who gives sexual pleasure to an individual or an audience should be treated in such a awful way by much of the very same audience.…

Under British law, where a person is asleep it is assumed that they could not give consent. The onus is then on the defendant to prove that he reasonably believed that consent was given. I struggle to think of any situation where a man could say that his belief was reasonable when the victim was asleep or unconscious.

I wonder what age rating this video will get in the UK.

Don't miss understand me, I'm not in favour of a free-for-all of insults and threats, I'm just challenging the common perception that you can say anything without consequences or the fear to those consequences, pretty much like you state.

Corporate censorship is going to become a big issue in the future. The potential for 'unfashionable' opinions to be filtered out by corporations who don't want bad publicity or out fear of legal liability is quite real.

In my opinion 'free speech' doesn't really exist. What exists in reality is limited speech. You're limited by law, fear of social condemnation, media regulators or by those willing to give you a platform to speak.

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?