Don't take away our porn

The gist of it is that some porn hurts people. And it is the deliberate hurting of people that these law-dictating types object to. This is understandable in instances where, say, a quick wank for some guys on the internet means that a terrified kid in an amateur studio somewhere is being chopped into tiny bits, but Glitter wonders what any of this has to do with consensual kink.

The law, if passed, will transfer the burden of guilt onto the consumer rather than the producer of pornographic images. This, in short, means that by clicking on some of our links, and even downloading some of the highly reccommended inappropriate content, you could become a criminal too.

We do not approve of this piece of legislation, least of all because it contains confusing phrases such as "an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life", and we are wholly against clumsy wordage in all it's forms. But the more important point is that it doesn't take into account all of the subtle differences that are necessary when you try to define 'extreme pornography'. And so today we pose a question of great importance and magnitude: is being hit on the bottom worse than being anally foot-fisted?

Answers, opinions, and cries of disgust below, but if you click on those links after Wednesday, we might have to report you.