Advanced search

To wonder when The Independent turned into a sub-Daily Mail rag

(11 Posts)
AgaPanthers Tue 02-Dec-14 17:20:41

At least online

It's basically total bullshit, complete with ridiculous photo, and it starts with the claim that 'female pleasure' was censored.

The female pleasure in question?

'Penetration by any object "associated with violence"'
'Aggressive whipping'

And none of the story is actually true, e.g., the BBFC are not the board of 'Censors' but 'Classification', there is in fact no amendment to the rules, they just extended the existing classification rules to apply to on-demand videos as they already do to DVD to implement an EU directive.

In their own sidebar of shame they have added bullshit articles like 'Chris Rock mourns the passing of Bill Cosby'

WilsonWilsonWoman Tue 02-Dec-14 17:38:05

A lot of men and women involved in the BDSM lifestyle find these things pleasurable between consenting adults. Different strokes for different folks. smile

zeezeek Tue 02-Dec-14 17:59:35

I used to be an avid online reader of the INdy - but now it irritates me for the DM reason and also the bloody annoying adverts down the sides and across the top and make it so slow when scrolling down!

HelenBrx Tue 02-Dec-14 18:36:42

The article doesn't say that the examples you give are those associated with female pleasure. And saying the rules haven't changed they've just been extended seems a little disingenuous to me.

There is some horrible porn which I think should not be allowed. But a bit of consensual spanking?

AgaPanthers Tue 02-Dec-14 18:52:41

The rules HAVEN'T been changed. The stuff they list about female ejaculation is based on the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, and has been a matter of debate between pornographers and the BBC for at least a decade. It's not a new thing at all.

The list they give is just clickbait, irrelevant to the fairly dull and mundane change of applying the BBFC to on-demand programming. The list of banned porn that they give is not new. It's just bullshit clickbaiting.

SophieBarringtonWard Tue 02-Dec-14 18:59:33

The Independent online team seems pretty below par, I have to say.

I really rate the i paper these days.

Twuntosaur Tue 02-Dec-14 19:04:19

As I read it, the "female pleasure" argument was based in face sitting and female ejaculation, not fisting and strangulation.

But possibly as I didn't read it in the Independent online wink

Gawjushun Tue 02-Dec-14 19:10:08

I feel the Indie is just pandering to the idiot Buzzfeed crowd nowadays, especially with their i100 sub site. 5 reasons why you won't believe so and so/ this will restore your faith in humanity/ cute animals bullshit. I had to unfollow their Twitter because the headlines made me gag.

HelenBrx Tue 02-Dec-14 19:11:13

I'm not an expert on illegal porn, but if the rules for VoD porn did not previously forbid, say, spanking and now they do - surely the rules have changed. IF the second paragraph of the Indie story is correct (and I've no idea if so) this doesn't look like irresponsible journalism to me.

AgaPanthers Tue 02-Dec-14 23:37:10

They suggest there's a new list of things that are not allowed in porn. That's not the case.

Previously VOD was not covered at all by the BBFC. Now it is.

That doesn't really become a debate about WHAT the BBFC refuses to certify.

kim147 Wed 03-Dec-14 10:06:56

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now