SITE POLL –-- Intravenous Drug Use in Self-Published Porn Torrents
-
General Poll - Discuss below
-
Sure,why not?We are not children
-
please let the users at least choose with an option, IF they would like to see such things ( as for other fetishes, which might not be interesting for the one or the other ).
… and I voted for "no, keep this banned" ... why? Because I' m not at all interested in such things and I wouldn't even think of promoting things, which may result to a shorter life.
-
Allow.
Although its not my "thing", also not up to me to tell others what their thing should be. As mentioned, we're all adults free to make our own decisions.
-
never saw one , so really can't form an opinion. But why not.
-
As far as I'm concerned, it crosses the line of basic common decency, which is why we banned it in the first place.
-
As far as I'm concerned, it crosses the line of basic common decency, which is why we banned it in the first place.
the 'line of basic common decency' is a subjective assessment, which probably wouldn't include scat, rosebuds, bdsm and many other activities either, in some people's opinions.
it shouldn't be up to staff to impose their tastes on the rules in an attempt to protect members' sensitivities (hence the poll, I guess, so thanks for asking
)as long as such activity is clearly signposted in the torrent's description, and is between consenting adults, then it is up to the individual member whether they download it or not.
caveat emptor
-
"Common decency" is more typified by general community assessment rather than being a personal subjective opinion.
A case in point:
Frequently, arguments about not censoring certain material are qualified with "as long as it's between consenting adults," but what if some users are sexually excited by non-consensual material such as pedophilia, bestiality, snuff, blood sport and torture? Isn't this qualification of consent an infringement on censoring personal interests and therefore should be considered invalid? I mean we could simply have these things labelled, right? And allow others to chose to watch or not. . .
Certainly this does not involve an issue of legality. If we relied on the legal precedent of protecting the rights of others in a non-consensual manner, torrents of IV drug use could be dismissed because of a near universal illegality of intravenously consumed substances. So if not legally based, where is this qualification against non-consensual activities coming from if not from some collective assessment of "common decency"?
How is this non-consensual principle a justifying concept with the anti-censorship folks if it violates, at the same time, some users' personal interests, the predominant issue of anti-censorship?
-
Aren't these people being exploited, hence non consent, because of their addiction to IV drugs?
If we look at rape laws, intoxication quite often invalidates consent.
Our rules are already based on the "universal" non consent mandate. We don't allow stuff that violates this; ie kiddie porn, bestiality, torture, etc.
The US generally has freedom of speech, but you can't scream "fire" in a crowed theater. Freedom of speech, despite popular belief, doesn't apply to private property (such as homes and businesses).
As for allowing IV drug use videos, as long as they are labeled as such, after 8+ years of trying, we know that it will never happen. We still get complaints from users about videos with no description, with invalid names, placed in the wrong category and pictures that have nothing to do with the video at all.
-
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
attributed>
In her biography on Voltaire, Hall wrote this (sic) phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.[3] Hall's quotation is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech. -
My last comment was meant to challenge anti-censorship positions in expounding how inclusion is an acceptable limit within this framework "as long as it involves activity with mutual consent."
How is censoring more extreme fetishes that contain non-consent acceptable if the point of argument stems from a primary directive of inclusion and deference on all matters to individual opinion? To do so is the same application of "common decency" / "community consensus" at another limit (adult consent), rather than being consistent in an anti-censorship principle of inclusiveness and personal decision.
-
To those that say "It's okay because it's not up to me to judge":
Intravenous drug use is a criminal matter in many places because society HAS judged it so. It's for this same reason why I don't want to see snuff videos on the site… because murder is a crime. I don't want this site to become known as a place to go to get your fill of depictions of illegal activities...
-
It seems a bit unnecessary to devise a "policy" regarding such a thing. I cannot imagine that it's really all that relevant to the sort of material we generally enjoy here, and it seems that such a prohibition would only serve to exclude a "themed movie" that happened, also, to contain depictions of injections.
I'm curious as to why this became an issue which the staff wanted to poll members about.
-
Re:
@NickGWM:To those that say "It's okay because it's not up to me to judge":
Intravenous drug use is a criminal matter in many places because society HAS judged it so. It's for this same reason why I don't want to see snuff videos on the site… because murder is a crime. I don't want this site to become known as a place to go to get your fill of depictions of illegal activities...
Although the opinion is valid, the logic is somewhat flawed. In many places, homosexuality is illegal and in some cases, punishable by life in prison or death.
(by no means scientific but still anecdotally acceptable evidentially speaking I think)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory (notice in US, homosexuality only legal nationwide since 2003)
Should we abide by laws, however unjust?
As noted by Riddler:
@Riddler:"Common decency" is more typified by general community assessment rather than being a personal subjective opinion.
I think the question posed in this poll is less a matter of legality but moreso how to define the phrase "common decency" as would be described/acceptable by GayTorrent.ru community members since 'community standards' are often the measure of what is considered 'decent'.
-
I personally do not mind however it depends on the content as well. If it is clearly someone being forced or unknowingly took it without consent then my response is going to be an adamant no. Of course we may not know the validity of the video it self. Unless the video has to be sent for approval beforehand, this policy change could potentially be abused still. Especially if the victim is drugged and not right in mind, they might start experiencing pleasure and that could be regarded as the victim gave his/hers consent, yet due to the affects of the drug, rape could potentially be as it weren't. Also, videos could be edited to remove such content where the victim refused or became drugged without consent. From the reasons I gave above, I would rather vote for keep it banned.
-
It seems a bit unnecessary to devise a "policy" regarding such a thing. I cannot imagine that it's really all that relevant to the sort of material we generally enjoy here, and it seems that such a prohibition would only serve to exclude a "themed movie" that happened, also, to contain depictions of injections.
I'm curious as to why this became an issue which the staff wanted to poll members about.
Theme movies are exempt from the rules, for the most part. Only in extreme cases will we/have we, banned theme movies.
This has become an issue because we recently got a flood of these videos.
-
Flood" is exaggerated, but there were a few and the first got reported as offending. It had pictures on it's presentation page showing actors injecting the supposed drug.
I found that quite shocking and repulsive, but not more than some hard spanking, extreme fisting or scat pictures. When thinking over that report, I tended to keep it.
The consideration were mainly two:
1/ The legality of such movies. I've seen on public TV documentaries showing peoples injecting themselves hard drugs intravenous. So depicting that drug use and distribute them seems not to be illegal (where I am / was). As well as far as I know, users of drugs are not chased where I life, but rather the distributors.
The original banned list contains content which is forbidden to process and distribute in most countries.There is of course the difficulty that gaytorrent.ru is accessible world wide and each country and state got it's own set of laws…
2/ If that "fetish" is banned, what next? Many minority fetishes, if not all fetishes, are offending the majority of others. There is as well the difficulty for moderators to decide if something crossing the border. Staff doesn't want to become the "bad taste porn" police", I hope.
-
We are not children. True! But, remember, our brain suck negative stimulus ten times stronger then positive one.
So, why bother come up with this topic in the first place if we already have prohibition for child pornography, snuff, bestiality etc.?
Keep it Banned!
-
Regular movies and documentaries showing people doing intravenous drugs are showed on regular TV.
Injections are common, and do not only have to be with illegal drugs.
The real question here is: Would someone want to put out a video of them doing intravenous drugs and show they are using an illegal substance ?
But for allowing it to be available. We are all over 18 and these movies are already rated for adults.
-
I believe it is fairly self-evident what material is and isn't generally offensive to the gay community standard of decency. And this is separate from personal tastes and preferences. Though as a group, the gay community is much more tolerant on most issues and particularly sexual expression, it does not exist without it's own standards of decency.
The torrents previously cited included clip material with minimal to no sexual behavior and merely demonstrated an individual engaging in intravenous consumption of a substance.
All other forms of drug use consumption is allowable under GT.ru uploading rules, except for intravenous injection. So this is not a ban against drug use. This does not ban intravenous injection of saline into various body parts. It is the two together that is relevant. Who among us hasn't seen a friend or family member go through addiction and ruin of their life? If one is injecting, it's generally not an indication of party use (which is questionable in its own right), but one of addiction and repetitive self-destructive behavior. And those with knowledge or experience in addiction know continued use ends in either death or prison. If you care about human beings, you would never want others to see this as some how glorified or acceptable within our community.
An argument of inclusiveness without community responsibility and standards of decency makes little sense to me. If we are to allow others complete personal freedom of material selection and include all uploads, we should remove all banned limits that violate standards of decency, such as child pornography, bestiality, rape, torture, blood sport, etc. . . Why maintain the ban on this other material, if an application of decency shouldn't be applied in the torrent library? Use of the qualifying "as long as it involves adult consent" is merely application of another community standard of decency. So which is it, we use a standard of decency or not? But you can't have it part way without the argument of personal choice breaks down.
