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

[ClawHandsIfYouBelieveInFreaks]

Spanking

Caning

Aggressive whipping

Penetration by any object "associated with violence"

Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)

Urolagnia (known as "water sports")

Female ejaculation

Strangulation

Facesitting

Fisting


A link to the article in The Independent which explains more.

The newspaper claims that the "measures seem to take aim at female pleasure" and that they're "arbitrary" choices to make....I'm not sure what part of the list other than female ejaculation is synonymous with female pleasure though!

The writer is scathing about the bans.

Although veiwers in the UK will be able to continue to watch pornography including the above, it will no longer be legal to make such films here.

[almondcakes]

I seem to have cross posted with you Buffy.

[sausageeggbacon11]

Well all this does is stop people in the UK producing videos or providing cam services (viewed as video on demand). Every other country can produce what they want and anyone with a connection to the internet can watch it. Basically it is a law that does absolutely nothing to affect consumption only suppliers and primarily webcam girls. If a british firm want to make porn they go to Romania as it is cheaper to get actresses.

Has to rate as the most pathetic law possible as it doesn't really do anything.

[FloraFox]

regulations on porn should be entirely about the rights, health and safety of the performers, nothing whatsoever to do with what acts are depicted

I don't agree with this. We have a right to define the sort of society we live in which includes the type of media we want to have.

HaroldsBishop there is actually a thriving market for illegal alcohol however the supermarkets driving down prices have reduced the burden of the cost of regulation for the consumer and therefore reduced that market significantly. Cannabis in Colorado is barely regulated therefore has little impact on price or options for availability.

I don't think you're thinking about these things very carefully. If you thought more carefully rather than making sweeping "but wait" statements, you might see the issues a bit more clearly.

[TheFriar]

The thing us you can't at the same time say that water sport or caning is degrading so you can't show that in open and say that everyone should be able to have their own sexuality, that it's ok and you can do whatever floats your boat.
Because you say it can't be done because it's degrading and will hurt the 'main stream population then you are in effect saying that people who do that are perverts.

If you want to protect the viewers then the first group you need to protect are the teenagers that can't put these acts in the context of ... BDSM/whatever sexual practice they are into.
Adults, I would assume should be able to make that difference and know that it's not because it's shown on porn films that it's what people do. Eg you can't do anal sex just like this, you need lube and prep that isn't shown in the film.
Or are we Ina situation where we say that most people actually can't do that therefore you need to avoid giving them ideas/letting them think it's ok to do it??

[FloraFox]

People who degrade other people are perverts. However there is no inconsistency in saying that perverse behaviour may be permissible behind closed doors but should not be part of public space or public life.

[almondcakes]

Putting these things in the context of BDSM isn't a good thing. BDSM has all manner of issues.

[SolidGoldBrass]

Every aspect of human activity has 'issues'. The amount of abuse of women that goes on in the name of love. marriage and monogamy is immense but very, very few people would approve the idea of banning marriage as it is so closely linked with male violence against women. Most people would argue that the existence of longlasting happy marriages mitigates the bad ones, and suggest that santions for abusers, help for their victims and more widespread education to the effect that 'loving' someone doesn't mean you own that person or are entitled to stalk, attack and kill someone who rejects your love.

I probably am the only one on this thread who finds it... interesting that a ban on 'weird' porn is happening so shortly after the concept of 'feminist' porn/porn aimed at women started being talked about. Despite some people's insistence that only disgusting heterosexual men want to wank over films or pictures of other people engaging in sexual activity, and women are all about love and virtue and victimhood, the reason there is not much porn aimed at and enjoyed by women is NOT that women and men are hugely physically and psychologically and psychosexually different. Women are just as capable of having fetishes and 'strange' fantasies as men are.

[Alyosha]

There are huge illegal alcohol and tobacco markets in the UK. And, as I said before, the prohibition proves that it is very difficult to make something illegal that had once been legal. It is not an equivalent situation.

People like to buy whatever is cheapest, whether that's porn, women, alcohol, weed or cigarettes.

[Alyosha]

Also the focus here has very much been in the consumer. Much of the illegal alcohol and tobacco trade centres on those that supply to wholesale, convenience and resellers. People selling cigarettes off the back of a lorry is a relatively small part of the problem. You would likely never know if you ha bought illegal alcohol or cigarettes.

[FloraFox]

Despite some people's insistence that only disgusting heterosexual men want to wank over films or pictures of other people engaging in sexual activity, and women are all about love and virtue and victimhood

^^Things no-one has said.

[almondcakes]

SGB, yes, you are probably the only one on this thread that finds a ban on 'weird' porn interesting because everyone else read the link to the censor explaining the list is false. They have simply used the already existing laws on what is and is not legal and applied them to film classification as that is their remit.

And I never suggested BDSM should be banned.

[EBearhug]

interesting that a ban on 'weird' porn is happening so shortly after the concept of 'feminist' porn/porn aimed at women started being talked about

So soon? Anna Span's been producing films for around 15 years now, and there's been at least one programme made about her work, which was a few years ago. (I suppose that is a very short time in the overall history of porn, given it goes back millenia.) And there are others.

I get how they took existing rules and just applied them to porn - but the result is a bit of an inconsistent mess, I think, and it's going to do nothing to protect consumers, because either people don't watch porn already, or they're far more likely to get it from free online sites, which won't be covered because most of it's not filmed in the UK in the first place.

[WillkommenBienvenue]

For a start, the only person saying this is a matter of sexism is Jerry Barnett who is a bloke involved in the porn industry.

The amendment is to ensure that on demand porn, the stuff that comes through your TV is censored in the same way that other restricted sale films are.

I'm surprised they weren't already to be honest.

Bloody typical male telling us they know better about what's good for us. What a charmer. Of course we want to pretend to be strangled and film it. That's great for the image of womanhood. Duh.

[EBearhug]

Of course we want to pretend to be strangled and film it.

There does seem to be quite a bit of otherwise "normal" porn that does seem to have the bloke holding the woman by the throat, rather than putting his hand on her shoulder, round the back of her neck or something.

I do particularly notice this, however, because I'm not keen on things round my neck; I don't like choker necklaces or polo neck jumpers, let alone someone's hand holding me there. I'd probably freak out if someone tried it IRL, and I don't like watching it at all; I mean, I've never been into watching horror films, but I think I'd probably find it easier to watch someone horribly stabbed than strangled, not that I have any intention of watching either - I'm just trying to point out I do have a particular sensitivity around my neck which probably affects how I see it on screen compared with other forms of violence. Erm, I can remember what my actual point was going to be here... Although I can confirm I definitely don't want to pretend to be strangled.

• I have seen some. I haven't actually seen so much porn to know whether it's really "quite a bit" or just "one or two", and I do not feel inclined to conduct any sort of survey. Maybe Gail Dines covers it.
  ** By which I mean just PiV sex with no accessories or extras.

[uutiruc]

Just to point out their is one crucial difference between BDSM-themed porn and abuse.

BDSM has consent.

Abuse does not have consent.

Of course we want to pretend to be strangled and film it.

And who made you the spokesperson for all women?

[uutiruc]

Some people will object to it, others won't. But as long as noone is being forced to do something they don't want to, I don't see a problem.

I disagree with the idea of banning things just because some find it morally objective.

[PuffinsAreFictitious]

Morally objective? Or morally objectionable?

We ban murder because it is morally objectionable, should we stop?

[TheFriar]

Not the same thing at all than murder.

If someone is into BDSM then it's not morally objectionable for them to do it.
It would be if someone was forced into BDSM when they don't want to.


And yes I'm not sure that naming BDSM or BDSM fims is appropriate as indontvaervthem as morally objectionable. Or rather no more than a lesbian film which would gave been seen as morally objectionable some years ago (but not so long ago).

There us an issue there about putting rules that in effect reflect some sense if morality which might be misplaced (just as itcwascwhem homosexuality wasn't accepted and some people were worried if you be detrimental to viewer to see 2 men or 2 women having sex).

Of course the issue is the one if consent here. Perhaps even more than with same sex films.

[PuffinsAreFictitious]

Yes, I'm aware of that, thanks Friar, although I don't necessarily agree with you. I was asking UUTIRUC to clarify what he meant by what he said. Unless you're him?

[FloraFox]

If someone is into BDSM then it's not morally objectionable for them to do it.

I don't agree with this. Degrading and abusing another person is morally objectionable.

[venusinscorpio]

Of course the issue is the one if consent here. Perhaps even more than with same sex films

I don't think there's any perhaps about it. The point is that non-consensual sexual acts or degrading role play constituting abuse or rape would in many cases look very similar to fully consensual BDSM on screen and it would be difficult to tell the difference or perceive whether a submissive partner was being coerced or freely participating. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, that's the reality.

Of course, to an extent this applies to all porn. But I think BDSM, as an arguably non-mainstream expression of sexuality, was always going to be more strictly regulated, where any regulation exists.

[uutiric]

@PuffinsAreFictitious, how can you possible compare BDSM between consenting adults and murder?

My above post points out there is consent in BDSM, BDSM participants (eg professional actors/actresses and doms/mistresses) are generally very knowledgeable and skilled in what they do and know how to inflict pain without causing injury. There is always a system for the "sub" to say when they have had enough (for example a safe word).

There is no consent in murder, victims of murder have not gave their consent to be murdered.

No comparison.

[uutiric]

@FloraFox if you don't participate in BDSM what gives you the right to define what is morally objectionable for the adults who do choose to participate in it?

[PuffinsAreFictitious]

uutiric, I was asking you clarify whether you meant morally objective? Or morally objectionable?

Phrases with really very different definitions.

I'll keep my thoughts on BDSSM to myself, as there is a woman here with far more knowledge than either you or I.

Perhaps, instead of frothing, you could answer a simple question?