John Holmes vs Mary Whitehouse.
Mary Millington vs Mary Poppins.
The august members of Blighty's Parliament may have a rather unusual sight to see on Friday: glancing out of their office windows, they could cop an eyeful of pro-porn protesters staging a graphic demonstration of their ire. The rally, planned for 12pm GMT at the Old Palace Yard, concerns the Audiovisual Media Services …
I think the thing with "female ejaculation" is that it looks very much (to law-makers) like urination, which is a big(ger) no-no (for some reason). Particularly in porn, they tend to squirt a lot of water into the woman beforehand, so to amplify the visual effect, but this also raises the similarity to peeing. Or so I hear.
It's the banning of "abusive language" I really don't get. I'm sure people hear worse things on TV all the time.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
The issue is not free speech (contrary to the assertion, "“Pornography is the canary in the coal mine of free speech") the issue is "what does the industry do to produce pron commercially - are the practises dangerous or abusive?"
Perhaps there are some people who feel the need to express themselves by streaming their nudity across the internet, but I'd guess this is just an industry lobby.
"The issue is not free speech"
Yes, it is.
"what does the industry do to produce pron commercially - are the practises dangerous or abusive?"
1) "Dangerous" - relative to what? Sky Diving Instructor? Coal Miner? Soldier?
2) "Abusive" - We're talking about consensual activity here, not people being forced to participate - that's already illegal.
"Perhaps there are some people who feel the need to express themselves by streaming their nudity across the internet."
There is no 'perhaps' about it, irrespective of the limitations of your experience and your sensibilities.
"but I'd guess this is just an industry lobby."
>> The issue is not free speech
Certainly part of the issue is free speech, we are talking about making pornography type B adhere to the same rules as type A, those rules are censorial. Censorship is always a free speech issue.
>> (contrary to the assertion, "“Pornography is the canary in the coal mine of free speech")
Rather eloquent though, although I suspect it's not the only freedom to be lumbered with such an unwanted accolade.
>> the issue is "what does the industry do to produce pron commercially - are the practises dangerous or abusive?"
Don't think that's the issue. They are looking at a finished film product, they aren't sending in inspectors or producing a workers rights code. It says quite clearly:
"whether real or (in a sexual context) simulated"
You might as well ban Bond films because that many deaths shouldn't happen during a film shoot.
>> Perhaps there are some people who feel the need to express themselves by streaming their nudity across the internet
There are millions of them, you could go and look although NSFW.
If there is an industry lobby involved it is inevitably supporting the ban.
The ban hits small, independent websites, most of them run by women who make porn for their own enjoyment. The big industry has no issue with cutting a scene to ribbons and turning women into brainless sex objects who live to suck cock. It's the independent porn makers who want to defend the dignity of their actors.
Short version: This ban does not impact on big name profits, only on the smaller more honest producers.
> I'd guess this is just an industry lobby.
Then you'd guess wrong. I know some of the people who will be there, members of groups such as the Sexual Freedom Coalition, Feminists Against Censorship and Backlash (the group that campaigned against the Extreme Porn laws and which has now broadened its remit).
This law and similar ones do nothing to prevent dangerous or abusive behaviour in pornography, because very often such things are actually in the purview of the "mainstream" porn industry rather than the sort of niche material which those who will be affected by this law produce and the "mainstream" industry has no interest in objecting to this law since it simply removes competition for their fare.
@Raumkraut Aha. No. Wait. I still don’t understand. Surely the thing to do is just prohibit the squirting of water into the woman beforehand. It’d have to be self policing ofcourse, making it kind of pointless, but if the porn starlet objected then she’d have legal grounds to prosecute her employer I suppose.
As for banning urination, why? It’s not my thing - but if others get their kicks by peeing (or shitting) on each other, why should I care? It’s not going to spoil my day. Besides, in my practical experience, surely there’s no need to add water - the amount of liquid an aroused woman can squirt is truly astonishing (unless there’s some new ‘fill the bath with fanny-juice’ kink that I’m not aware of).
And has anyone died because their lady friend sat on their face? I think that we should told. In the meantime, I have some research to be getting on with.
Darling, get the leather out, I’m on my way…
You have to wonder about British priorities.
The GCHQ is effectively stripping your life and privacy bare yet only a few people seem to recognise the danger.
But the porn sites (around 50% featuring Asian/Orient women) are sacrosanct.
Of course, CAMERON and that woman from Maidenhead - MAY- have exposed their ignorance of the InterNet and VPN's.
Dear Sir, I have been avidly watching this television series for some years in the hope that it would one day focus on the subject matter described in the title. After all I very much welcome progressive program makers dealing with all manner of contemporaneous human activity. However, I am sad to say that watching groups of people bobbing about in boats entrapping fish is not at all what I was anticipating. Therefore I find myself in agreement with those wishing to ban such abundantly erronious and frankly misleading material(s) being transmitted by means of the interwebs.
Back in the day I believe there were such things as Sex shops that sold, er sex stuff.
If I saw a bunch of seven year old's hovering outside the door I'd be concerned.
The internet has now moved the door and (clear) windows into the wall of their bedroom or at least the living room.
Back when I was growing up we didn't have easy one click access to the "further from procreation" material and I (mentally) valued erotic simplicity, there was no need for that much extra.
Excessive censorship is bad but the internet now impinges on many assets of society, perhaps it is time to move some of this stuff off the internet high street to a back road somewhere, not saying you can't go there just move it away from the newsagents, these things are not the same.
What an ignorant post.
firstly, the Internet is not a high street. The analogy is flawed as there's no logical connect between them. You don't wander down a "street" online. You go to a search engine. Most people use Google, Bing or Yahoo. Browsers default to them, phones default to them.
They all, by default, filter adult content. However if you search for very specific terms or turn off the content filters (something you have to do at least 2-3 clicks to accomplish - i.e. not by accident, you'll find adult material.
You have to be looking for this stuff, to find it. A 7 year old looking at Frozen music videos (or whatever 7 year olds do) is not going to accidentally run across inter-racial midget bukkake fisting parties.
You say maybe it should be "moved away from the newsagents" ? Like TOR ? You want to move porn to something like that? El Oh El.
Schools, mobile companies and ISPs should just turn on family filters by default. If you want it unblocked, it's unblocked. Problem solved. Except it's not because the kids will find a way around it anyway. They always will and always do. And have done since time began.
Unfortunately I don't think you are including in your rigid understand of what others do the concept of links or social media or just kids, they will find this stuff, it will be passed on, kids don't limit themselves to search engines.
Adult VLAN tag, is that easier?
Just because we work under the current networking setup that does not mean we should limit our ideas for alternatives.
Calling posts ignorant is normally superfluous, unless you assume other readers are insufficiently intelligent to make up their own minds.
@Powernumpty - Your argument is irrelevant because this isn’t about protecting the children (oh won’t somebody please think of the children!). This law won’t make it any harder for children (or anyone else) to get hold of seriously hard core smut. It won’t make it illegal to distribute or view scenes of lovely ladies squirting and spanking, or lusty lads pissing and swearing. It’ll just make it illegal for such porn to be made in the UK. You’ll still be able to get hold of this content, and you’ll be safe in the knowledge that they’re Muricans or Russkies. If the content is legal to distribute and view then it should be legal to make as well. This is just a farkin’ ridiculous law made by a bunch of politicos who are desperately out of touch.
"This law won’t make it any harder for children (or anyone else) to get hold of seriously hard core smut."
Edinburgh's Playhouse Theatre apologises after accidentally sending porn DVDs to families
Parents and children were expecting footage of a children's summer project but received 'highly inappropriate' material, dubbed 'absolutely digusting filth'
> If I saw a bunch of seven year old's hovering outside the door I'd be concerned.
Ah, so, once again, *we* and the Government should be responsible for the upbringing of *your* children. All computers should have default-on filters, all ISPs should block this stuff unless we ask to be allowed to see it.
Forget Parental Responsibility, if your children get to see bad things like this, it's obviously our fault, not yours.
This post has been deleted by its author
When things get bad, the first thing politicians address is personal liberty because, "it's for your safety".
What exactly have these people got against human sexual freedom?
Producers will simply move to other parts of Europe to produce their features.
We live in a global economy.
"What exactly have these people got against human sexual freedom?"
It's the old attitude of "If you are not part of the solution - then you are part of the problem".
In general UK society is getting very intolerant and is losing its sense of nuances. Sex in particular is a subject on which "responsible" members of society are expected to support any prohibitions. People are afraid to take a nuanced position for fear that they will be accused of being "one of them".
If they really are "one of them" - then they will be even more vociferous in supporting prohibitions.
This has two possible roots. Firstly they fear being "found out". Secondly they are afraid of their own dark desires - by imposing controls on others they also hope to control themselves. There is often a self-assumption that if they are teetering on the brink of temptation - then the "lesser mortals" would not only have the same temptations but would undoubtedly succumb.
I've also addressed the Greens, and some of their local activists are just starting to wake up to the realities of what's going on - https://www.facebook.com/michelle.knight.77920/posts/733350603385300 - the numbers of people involved here are considerable.
One adult dating site lists roughly half a million UK people are members currently looking for someone kinky. In 2012 the BBC Good Food show at Olympia pulled in something like 28,000 people ... Erotica at the same place for the same length of time, pulled in roughly three times that figure at its peak ... around 1% of the population of London in its day. I guess kink is around three times as popular as good food..... Eat that :-) -- (for fuck sake, I've done shit loads in my life to be embarrassed about ... you think I'm going to apologize for a crap joke like that! Forget it!)
"No, just MPs prudishness."
The MPs are often driven by single issue lobbies. This is the Mary Whitehouse effect which rears its ugly head in every generation. People with an "issue" tend to lose any sense of tolerance or nuances.
The general public pick up on this from the media - and also still the pulpit. Like the Vicar of Bray they know that safety lies in agreeing with those who apparently have power and influence in their society. To show they are "good" members of that society - they will then turn their induced feelings of personal "guilt" into aggressive condemnation of others who appear to lack official support.
Is bare their ankles..
The sheer sight of such an abominable sight of pure carnality would surely cause the MP's in question to faint, spark riots, mayhem, and general civil unrest of the insubordinate kind!
I'd use the joke icon, but it seems the british neo-Victorians are serious about this kind of stuff, and collectively the normal british have failed at stopping this kind of nonsense.
The Tories have heard of it, but really don't think it's a good idea.
What really, really pisses me off is the inconsistency and illogicality of most (all?) of the legislation we get, not just this particularly crass bit.
Films of two (or more) consenting adults indulging in some light bondage and spanking? Dangerous, ban it at once, think of the children!
Films of people (actors) shooting, beating and stabbing people for criminal purposes? No problem.
Films of a mouse chopping bits off a poor cat. Fine, children's hour stuff.
Totally, totally inconsistent and illogical. Why is killing people okay to film, but not people having a wee? We all do it you know...(or maybe Tories don't - do the undead have normal bodily functions?)
Like everything else in this bloody country the government doesn't have a brain of it's own, they have to follow the US down the puritanical route.
Pre watershed TV with guns, crime and swearing that kids can see => OK, FILL YER BOOTS!
18 rated pornography to be watched by consenting adults in their own home => BAN THIS SICK FILTH!
It's even more illogical than that.
Face-sitting is banned because apparently it's dangerous, but it's still fine for a man to choke a woman with his errr, manhood.
Male ejaculation is fine, female ejaculation is not.
The protests and petitions will fail, but I really can't see the regulations standing up in court - the legislation that they're based on dates from the 1950s and much of it has already been overturned and there's also the prospect of the ECHR getting involved because there's an equal rights issue.
Se where that will lead....
"I say my dear shall we engage in sexual congress this evening?"
"Oh yes dear, let's."
* lights out and noise of zips being undone *
* lights on we see them both fully clothed again *
"Thank you darling that was most pleasant. Shall we engage at the same time next month?"
"Of course dear that would be most agreeable."
Single mothers. Asylum seekers. Aunt sallies all. Punch bags to bash, a threat to exaggerate, with the correct sexual, moral and ethnic make-up to fit the demonology that would elicit the maximum response form the Tory heartlands.
But pornography, thought Nicole, *hard core* pornography, well that was one threat that wasn't exaggerated.
"It's not exactly an aunt sally though, is it?" she said.
Palablane gave her the sort of grin that would scare psychiatrists.
"I understand your reservations Nicole, but believe me, it's the biggest one there is. It's the queen of aunt sallies. It's a cheap politician's wet dream. Christ, these days, nobody in government wants to suggest or implement a policy that won't deliver a return before the next election - or even before the next opinion poll. But this? It's video nasties all over again. Not just something you can blame, but something you can *ban*. So that you can show the electorate that you're Getting Something Done. Thatcher's lot did it back in '83 to distract attention from the fact that crime was going through the roof and there was rioting on the streets. They brought in the Video Recordings Act which blamed it all on a few cheesy B-movies and banned, amongst other things, hard porn.
"Then, in '92, after the Jamie Bulger killing, you had another uproar. David Alton, for whom the irony of being nominally a "liberal" never quite chimed in, sniffing for votes by Getting Something Done, demanding that video censors be given powers that they... er, already had, since the Video Recordings Act in 1984."
"But this isn't Childs Play 3 or Reservoir Dogs, Jack, this is hard porn!" Nicole protested.
"Woooh! It's the bogeyman, isn't it? All dark and scary. At least that's what Mikey-boy's relying on. But think about it Nicole. Rape, sexual violence, misogyny, these things have been around since we came down from the trees. Pornography happens along at the arse-end of the twentieth century and it's suddenly the cause of it all? What, does it work retroactively? Do wankmags travel through time? Perhaps Stephen Hawking should investigate..."
"When asked whether sexually explicit material should be legal in the UK, most people say yes it should. Ask the same people if hard-core pornography should be legal, and they all say no. So you ask them to define pornography and they say: sexual material that is perverse, depraved, corrupting. Offensive to women, yakka yakka yakka. Who the fuck's going to say yes, let's legalise *that*? Nobody. But it's completely meaningless. There's no imperial scale of depravity, no universal standard of what's offensive to women or to men for that matter. It's entirely subjective. And this is Swan's coup. That's why pornography, like it or loathe it, is the greatest aunt sally in politics. Back Swan, vote against porn, and you're voting against whatever you individually disapprove of, your own personal sexual demon. Nobody knows what they're really objecting to, because nobody's ever going to *see* this material that they're banning. But in the voters' minds it's whatever they don't like. This fine upstanding man in fighting for *them*, against whatever they don't like."
Country of the Blind by Christopher Brookmyre
And we aren't sex workers or campaigners or involved in the film industry. And, OMG, when we found out about the simulated sex theme, we SO weren't keen on going. But we do know a bit about the "acts" legislated against and think people need to speak out before it's too late.
Our issue and reason to have gone is censorship. The entire "list" is so ambiguous and subjective it means almost anything they would WANT it to mean. It's arbitrary, and in my opinion, is just a wedge. How can they ban people from filming it, but not from doing it, if it's so dangerous?
And if they are banning it because it's dangerous and they don't want "children" to see it, why don't they ban Jackass and Worlds Funniest Videos, or any of the many slasher movies, or Dexter (which clearly sends the message it's all right to be a serial killer if you kill the "bad" people)
Ambiguity and subjectiveness:
"Non-adult role-play". - there are people who like to pretend to be puppies & kittens, purely to be stroked, given treats & play with a bit of wool. There are people (usually women) who like to role-play being a pony and are taught the prance steps (and who are really pretty doing it in costume). How is that "dangerous" (or even a bad influence on children). Does that mean that any children's show with actors dressed as animals will be banned? Of course not. But why? They are doing exactly the same thing! Why *didnt* they call it "role play as children" if that is what their concern was?
Facesitting. I'd like to see the statistics on how many people have died. If they are talking about smothering, why didn't they just call it that - rather than calling it the moniker of a sexual position. And from the "sexist" point of view, the claim is that women can be just as smothered or choked during o sex.
"Insertion of objects associated with violence".- well boxers and martial artists can obviously not use their hands during sex. Anything can be "associated with violence" if it's used violently.
"Spanking - that will obviously warp minds
"Restraints" - well that's the sales of Anne Summers fluffy pink handcuffs down. AND, why can they still film it in all the crime programmes and it's acceptable? Have you ever looked at photos of Shibari? It's artwork.
"Aggressive whipping". As long as you do it nicely, evidently it's all right.
The list goes on. Every one is open to interpretation. And none are really dangerous - unless someone intends them to be. Everything is dangerous if it's intended to be.
The problem with the activities is that they are linked (tenuously/delusionally at best) in the LEGISLATORS minds with Sex. Which for some reason seems to be a major issue. They cannot seem to even grasp the concept that many of the activities have nothing to do with sex at all.
As for "protecting the children"....that's a parent's responsibility. Since when is the government responsible for what a parent allows his child to read or see on tele? It's rather ironic that the government feels SUCH responsibility to the children in this respect when a child isn't evaluated by the schools for Special Needs until parents take them to tribunals or given appointments at NHS Mental Health until something absolutely tragic happens. oh. The responsible people all evidently work in the censoring department of government.
As for politicians being "afraid" to overturn it in case they lose votes - they will get MORE votes for having the courage to do it. And well done & well deserved.
Because I may or may not "like" some of the things in that list. But what I DONT like is someone telling me what sex I can do in the privacy of my own bedroom or saying it is "wrong". And that's where it's bound to be headed. At the very least, it attaches some kind of "wrong" stigma to it. Or else it wouldn't be banned! If the legislators don't like sex or to have it, that's their own business. But don't try to ruin it for everyone else. That's just sour grapes.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022