Sex Acts Including Spanking Just Banned In UK Porn
This is crazy.
I love what the blonde protester in the hat they talked to (in the news video) says: "If it's between two consent..." (she catches herself) "well, two three, four..." consenting adults, it's entirely up to them who's doing what..."
I laughed at her suddenly remembering to include group sex, but she's right about the consenting part.
Christopher Hooten writes in the Independent UK:
Pornography produced in the UK was quietly censored today through an amendment to the 2003 Communications Act, and the measures appear to take aim at female pleasure.The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 requires that video-on-demand (VoD) online porn now adhere to the same guidelines laid out for DVD sex shop-type porn by the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC).
I didn't know they had "guidelines" -- aka nanny state bans on stuff sold in stores. How crazy. 2014, and they're telling consenting adults what porn they can watch?
Seemingly arbitrarily deciding what is nice sex and what is not nice sex, the board's ruling on 'content that is not acceptable' (p.24) effectively bans the following acts from being depicted by British pornography producers.
These include some pretty vanilla stuff -- stuff mommy and daddy may engage in in the average date night in the suburbs:
SpankingPhysical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)
Role-playing as non-adults [Amy explains: you're adults having sex, but maybe daddy has been "a bad boy"]
Physical restraint
Humiliation
At what point do residents of the US and UK start to worry that they're living in a police state?
Oh, and Hooten points out how idiotic this is. It's not going to stop people from watching porn. It's just going to stop people in the UK from legally making money from producing it. (Thanks -- we in California's porn capital need all the tax dollars we can get!)
While the measures won't stop people from watching whatever genre of porn they desire, as video shot abroad can still be viewed, they do impose severe restrictions on content created in the UK, and appear to make no distinction between consensual and non-consensual practices between adults.
And again, the reasoning given by nanny state legislators is "Because the children!..."
"In a converging media world these provisions must be coherent, and the BBFC classification regime is a tried and tested system of what content is regarded as harmful for minors."
Guess what: You have a kid; it's your responsibility to deal with all the "harmful" in the world. You shouldn't have the state curtailing the rest of us from acts between consenting adults. (It's your body; rent it if you want to.)
via @theprophetv
At what point does a society cease to be when citizens simply start ignoring, or willfully breaking, the laws passed by their government?
Western civilization may be at the point when we find out.
JFP at July 9, 2015 6:04 AM
I blogged on why this is a bad idea last year
Robert King at July 9, 2015 6:07 AM
Just when you thought the English couldn't get stuffier.
Patrick at July 9, 2015 6:10 AM
No longer "Back to the Future".
Now it's "Back to the Past".
i.e., ignoring laws passed by their government, see Sanctuary city
Bob in Texas at July 9, 2015 6:10 AM
This happened 7 months ago - the article is from December 2014.
Snoopy at July 9, 2015 6:11 AM
Or Brigham Young's marriage(s). "If it's between 56 consenting adults...?
Patrick at July 9, 2015 6:11 AM
Well, I guess that kills the party line of:
"No sex, please. We're British. . . . "
Keith Glass at July 9, 2015 6:27 AM
What happens with all these frivolous statutes, is the police focus their attention on the generally law abiding to write tickets, and prosecute for petty infractions, and usually the focus will be on things that bring in revenue, like traffic infractions. If they then discover money or drugs, they invoke asset seizure.
At the same time, real crime, and bad neighborhoods are ignored, and allowed to flourish, because policing there, doesn't pay anything, and also, it might be dangerous.
So, it is a two fur.
Streets become less safe, the police are almost solely in the business or revenue extraction like the mafia, and ordinarily citizens become afraid to report real crime for fear that some minor infraction on their part (like an unpaid parking ticket) will cause them more trouble than it is worth to report.
Isab at July 9, 2015 6:38 AM
Maybe it's added enticement for the spanking fetishists in England. "Oh, baby...let's break some laws!"
Isab, that honestly had never occurred to me about it being more profitable to police safer neighborhoods and minor infractions, but you're probably right. That's very disturbing.
Patrick at July 9, 2015 6:57 AM
I'm old enough to remember when the proggies wanted to keep government out of our bedrooms...
I R A Darth Aggie at July 9, 2015 7:04 AM
Not only is it safer and more profitable for police to police in the better neighborhoods, but if something goes sideways and someone is injured, maimed, or killed, the Usual Suspects won't show up to whip up the mob into a riot.
It'll be handled quietly, generally some sort of monetary settlement.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 9, 2015 7:07 AM
That's too bad. The Brits turn out some pretty good porn, especially of the more unconventional variety; they do the bondage/humiliation porn especially well.
roadgeek at July 9, 2015 7:21 AM
> Just when you thought the English couldn't get stuffier.
This move will make the English less stuffier.
jerry at July 9, 2015 10:49 AM
"... of what content is regarded as harmful for minors..."
Brits porn is intended for minors?
Ben at July 9, 2015 2:13 PM
At what point do residents of the US and UK start to worry that they're living in a police state?
At what point does the frog think, "Is it getting hot in here"? The answer is, when it is far too late.
Warhawke223 at July 9, 2015 2:51 PM
Isab, there's one more advantage for the police in putting most of their effort into minor regulatory offenses - they can cite the rising crime rate as a reason for budget increases. Chasing after made-up crimes increases both the aggregate numbers including victimless crimes that wouldn't be reported or counted except when the police arrest someone for them, and the serious categories of crimes with real victims, which are rising because the cops aren't catching those criminals.
markm at July 13, 2015 6:33 AM
Also, look up Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
markm at July 13, 2015 6:34 AM
Leave a comment