Because the article in the OP is written by a piss-poor, lazy excuse for a journalist, it doesn't explain what has happened.
The Obscene Publications Act was passed in 1959, and does not directly define what is obscene, but creates a test:
"For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it."
And this would be determined by a jury.
What has happened, basically, is that there is such a massive exponential increase in the volume of porn in society thanks to wankers like Jane Fae, Christopher Hooton, et al, that a lot of stuff which would have once been deemed obscene is now completely run of the mill.
And so today the CPS have updated their prosecution guidelines (not law per se in that a Mary Whitehouse type could bring a private prosection) to be far more liberal.
New guidance:
www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/obscene-publications
It says:
"conduct will not likely fall to be prosecuted under the Act provided that:
It is consensual (focusing on full and freely exercised consent, and also where the provision of consent is made clear where such consent may not be easily determined from the material itself); and
No serious harm is caused (whether physical or other, and applying the guidance above at paragraph 17); and
It is not otherwise inextricably linked with other criminality (so as to encourage emulation or fuelling interest or normalisation of criminality);"
The old guidance said:
"It is impossible to define all types of activity which may be suitable for prosecution. The following is not an exhaustive list but indicates the categories of material most commonly prosecuted:
sexual act with an animal
realistic portrayals of rape
sadomasochistic material which goes beyond trifling and transient infliction of injury
torture with instruments
bondage (especially where gags are used with no apparent means of withdrawing consent)
dismemberment or graphic mutilation
activities involving perversion or degradation (such as drinking urine, urination or vomiting on to the body, or excretion or use of excreta)
fisting"
In terms of lack of consent, they expand
"Non-consent for adults must be distinguished from consent to relinquish control. The presence of a “gag” or other forms of bondage does not, without more, suffice to confirm that sexual activity was non-consensual.
Where a person consents to an activity, as a matter of law such consent will not amount to a defence to assault occasioning actual bodily harm or worse: R v Brown and others [1994] 1 AC 212. Accordingly, publications which show or depict the infliction of serious harm may be considered to be obscene publications because they show criminal assault notwithstanding the consent of the victim. This includes dismemberment and graphic mutilation. It includes asphyxiation causing unconsciousness, which is more than transient and trifling, and given its danger is serious."
Note that despite the lies from the lying wankers there was no specific 'ban' on urination (or as this was dressed up by porn wankers 'female ejaculation;), rather they were talking about urination specifically onto the body.
So basically the main change appears to be more bondage porn and more degradation porn.