A list of the sex acts banned today in the UK porn industry.

This stems back to the days when they had to keep one foot on the floor by the bed when they made a movie - they had to have clear written boundaries. Things have moved on and determining whether something is damaging to viewers or society at large has become subjective and extremes are normalised - the system needs to change completely. The actors themselves will always say that they weren't harmed, that argument cannot be used any more.

This debate cannot continue to be run on the basis of consent any more. Abuse is abuse, people that are abused generally don't understand that they are. They may be 'consenting' adults but if they have been groomed as adolescents and teens then when they get to 18 does it mean they are consenting adults?

Someone with a healthy attitude to sex and relationships just isn't going to go down the road of producing abusive pornography. Just because abusive sex is one person's norm doesn't mean that it should be applied to everyone else because they have 'consented'.

Prohibition in the US had huge problems with corrupt law enforcement which enabled the mafia to thrive. I don't agree that normal people were buying alcohol from the mafia and there is still a much greater attitude of temperance in the US than there is in the UK. Gambling is banned or highly restricted in a number of places and people generally comply with the law.

In many places where activities that are banned thrive, it is due to lax or corrupt law enforcement.

Fiyyase, the list (which itself is incorrect) is the interpretation of current obscenity law applied to film censorship. Obviously censors cannot give a classification to acts which fall under obscenity law. Amateur pornographers would be dealt with by obscenity law directly, not by film classification. Whether ornot they would be convicted has far greater scope for interpretation. So urination is frequently a component of highly degrading forms of pornography, but if the depiction appeared in a less degrading situation they would be highly unlikely to be convicted, despite it being illegal in pornography.

Portugal's policy on drugs? For over a decade now they have decriminalised small amounts of drugs for personal use

No comparison, sorry

Drugs generally harm the people that use them most. Dodgy porn harms many more people and young people exposed to it especially. Censorship laws exist to protect viewers not actors.

Well that's a cogent argument then. All laws exist because somebody wants to do something and we think they shouldn't. Are any of you arguing that we should have no laws at all about anything?

Are you arguing that no form of pornography at all should be considered obscene on the grounds that banning things is a waste of time?

And the reason there is a black market for alcohol and cigarettes is because are very heavily taxed on the ground that if it's expensive it will deter people from buying so much. Which as you say doesn't work and just fuel The black market.

I fully agree with SGB. If you eant to do something, protect the actors by ensuring that they aren't just there because they have no other choice rather than by telling people can do and isn't acceptable or what us or what isn't degrading (tbh all I have seen in porn IS degrading for the woman because it's about her being used by men)

Then there's also downloading copyrighted music and movies online which is illegal and against the law yet seemingly almost every tom, dick and harry who owns a computer does.

"There are a lot less people doing heroin than there would be if it was legal."

I don't suppose you've heard of Portugal's policy on drugs? For over a decade now they have decriminalised small amounts of drugs for personal use after they finally admitted the "war on drugs" just wasn't working (this covers all drugs from weed to heroin to cocaine). Did this cause the entire country to become a nation of junkies? Far from it:

www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

"Banning things reduces the demand for it. Most people don't want to break the law. There are a lot less people doing heroin than there would be if it was legal."

Yes, because the prohibition of alcohol in the USA was a roaring success (actually it wasn't, people could still get hold of alcohol and the Mafia made a ton of money and grew in power. The illegal alcohol was also far stronger and more risky leading to more violence and health issues).

And the prohibition of cannabis is also a roaring success. Oh wait no it wasn't, weed is the most popular used drug in the UK and USA that's illegal.

Banning something might deter some people. But others will simply think of a way to "outsmart" the law and come up with a way to get hold of it anyway. Banning x or y also carries the risk of making it a "forbidden fruit". If something desirable is banned that often makes people want it even more and make them feel "naughty" when they do get hold of it.

" I can assure you the availability of legal alcohol has not stopped a thriving illegal market (it's still cheaper)."

There's also a thriving black market for cheap cigarettes.

Even if x or y is legal, a black market is going to emerge if the government start taxing the out of it and make their citizens pay several times more for it than most other countries would.

Am I right in thinking the acts listed haven't actually been made illegal, it just means professional porn producers can't make and sell any pornos with those acts?

This means people can still legally own and watch such material there is nothing to stop people continuing to upload their own "amateur" porn with the above acts to the internet.

I work in the alcohol industry. I can assure you the availability of legal alcohol has not stopped a thriving illegal market (it's still cheaper).

Banning things that a substantial number of people want never works and invariably makes the situation worse. When it was legal for heroin addicts to get their heroin prescribed by doctors (about 40 years ago) there were very few actual registered heroin addicts. The number increased hugely after the prescribing of heroin to addicts was banned.
One of the reasons the Yanks have so much trouble with organised crime is the legacy of Prohibition, which was an utter fucking disaster. The majority of Americans wanted to drink alcohol from time to time, so the prohibition of it simply meant that most people lost all respect for the rule of law and organized crime became something that people both appreciated (you got your booze from the mob) and romanticized (they were the colourful, risk-taking rebels who got you your booze).
A lot of people like looking at depictions of sexual behaviour. There's nothing wrong with this in itself. The exploitation/coercion of some performers is a problem, but this weird, nitpicking, mundane, heteronormative list of prohibitions doesn't actually address the problem of coerced and exploited performers at all.

what about shoving unnaturally large things up arses, or covert porn etc .....bloody obvious things!

It has always been the case that there are things that are illegal to do or to film in the UK that are legal elsewhere.

The censors follow the guidance of the police and previous UK case law on judgements about pornographt and what they can and cannot give a film classification to. Part of this is about not inciting hatred.

Surely this is a sensible and not at all arbitrary way of creating laws in the UK, as opposed to saying well, this is legal in Thailand/US/Croatia so we may as legalise it here too?

Various forms of hate speech are legal in the US and I see it happen online. I still think it changes the whole tone of living in the UK that it would be illegal to say or write those things here. I think it does make us less racist and it is an important distinction that if you read hate speech about ethnic groups you are viewing beyond the boundaries of UK standards.

I don't want to be governed according to the lowest possible standards just because somebody, somewhere else is legally doing it online.

I don't think people will be breaking the law by watching stuff on the net that is made elsewhere?

I really don't think this will reduce demand at all.

What it might have done is advertised what is out there to people who didn't previously know about it? Teenage boys might be hitting google off the back of this I would imagine.

Banning things reduces the demand for it. Most people don't want to break the law. There are a lot less people doing heroin than there would be if it was legal.

I suppose there is a lot of concern about porn in the general population and they need to be seen to be doing something?

This is all it is. It will have little or no effect on young people as long as the internet is so unregulated.

I guess it's better than nothing.

They could protect more women by making sure this kind of thing doesn't go underground. Since when did banning something ever remove the market for it?

it worked so well for drugs

Does this mean that the upcoming 50 shades of grey film is going to be banned?

I wonder if they thought of that one...

It isn't about telling people what is degrading Friar. It is about looking at common factors in situations of degredation.

The scenes you describe could be censored when looked at by the censors in context.

darkest yes you did say that but I took from your post that you were not in favour of this ban because you didn't think it would be achievable to prevent young people from accessing porn. If that wasn't your point, I'm not sure what was. I don't see how banning acts that are particularly degrading to women is a form of slut-shaming.

There is a value in stating that certain things are not consistent with our views of society and porn which is particularly degrading, especially to women, is a legitimate target as something that should be banned. It sets a standard for the type of behaviour that is consistent with the type of society we want to live in.

I agree with Flora- it all needs banning imo but this is a start.