From the previous thread where somebody was pushing for extreme *advertiser censored* legislation-it was done as a knee-jerk, vote winning thing after the Jane Longhurst case after he mother lobbied endlessly & turned out to be a badly thought out total disaster-with all kinds of things most broad minded adults would consider pretty tame fare potentially turning people into criminals. It is the same argument as murders etc being blamed on violent mainstream films, video game, people watching WWE etc-total bs, used by defence lawyers & various lobby groups to try to downplay guilt & push their agenda/morals onto everybody else. It is very hard to define 'extreme' *advertiser censored* as well due to different peoples view & a poorly defined legal definition. We must not also forget a lot of 'extreme *advertiser censored*' is women dominating men & women dominating other women & consumed by women in large numbers.
The reality is these people will do these things regardless-people did not have access to Hollywood Films, video games, *advertiser censored* etc until fairly recently in history & yet since the beginning of time things like this, the rape & murder of children etc has been happening. 99 out of 100 people will consume all of these things & see it as escapism & fantasy & they will never try to recreate it in real life, the other 1 will know full well it isn't real as well, but do this stuff & then blame it at trial.
I dislike the use of the term “broad minded adults” as if anyone who objects to commercialised sexual violence is just silly, childish and narrow minded.
Your whole post sounds like you are trying to defend users of violent *advertiser censored*, and deflect from the fact that it’s mainly men who do it.
There is a lot of research that *advertiser censored* changes the brain. It is also associated with sex crimes. It is no coincidence that men like WC are often found to have an extreme *advertiser censored* habit. The sexual reward is an extremely strong motivator, but like a drug they need more and more extreme stimulation to get excited.
There is a huge difference between violent films: (1) violent films are not intended to be masturbated to. (2) No one is really hurt in violent films, whereas *advertiser censored* workers really are penetrated, beaten etc. It is NOT fantasy, AT ALL. (3) the women in *advertiser censored* are often traumatised, physically and psychologically.
As for your other points, female on female *advertiser censored* is orchestrated by men, for men. (So is women dominating men). As someone who used to be attracted to women, I can assure you that none of us like female on female *advertiser censored*. It is a joke among lesbians. Oh: and the *advertiser censored* actresses are still traumatised by selling their bodies even if they perform with women, or perform by dominating men.
Women do not have anywhere near the same interest in extreme *advertiser censored* as men do, or in *advertiser censored* in general. I don’t see why “we mustn’t forget” your personal opinion that “women do it too”. Even if we did, why on earth would it be relevant to the point at hand: that extreme *advertiser censored* is associated with male sexual violence? Not that it’s true (that women are just as into extreme *advertiser censored*).
As for “extreme”, if something is illegal when sex is not involved (eg choking, beating, coercive and controlling behaviour) then it is extreme.
Lots of people consider the legislation a success.
