News > UK A long list of sex acts just got banned in UK porn
Regulations branded 'simply a set of moral judgements'
CHRISTOPHER HOOTON Author Biography Tuesday 02 December 2014
102K
PRINT A A A
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).
Seemingly arbitrarily deciding what is nice sex and what is not nice sex, the board's ruling on 'content that is not acceptable' (p.23) effectively bans the following acts from being depicted by British pornography producers:
Spanking
Caning
Aggressive whipping
Penetration by any object "associated with violence"
Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)
Urolagnia (known as "water sports"
Role-playing as non-adults
Physical restraint
Humiliation
Female ejaculation
Strangulation
Facesitting
Fisting
The final three listed fall under acts the BBFC views as potentially "life-endangering".
READ MORE: WHAT IS NOW BANNED UNDER NEW GOVERNMENT LAWS
COMMENT: NEW LEGISLATION WILL TURN EROTIC FILM INTO BORING, UNREALISTIC MALE FANTASY
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.
Femdom porn will be hit particularly hard by the regulations
"There appear to be no rational explanations for most of the R18 rules," Jerry Barnett of the anti-censorship group Sex and Censorship told Vice UK. "They're simply a set of moral judgements designed by people who have struggled endlessly to stop the British people from watching pornography."
More worryingly, the amendment seems to take issue with acts from which women more traditionally derive pleasure than men.
Films banned in British cinemas
1 of 10
The Life Story of David Lloyd George
Next
The Life Story of David Lloyd GeorgeBattleship PotemkinFreaksIsland of Lost SoulsThe Wild OneGlen or Glenda?Black SundayStraw DogsA Clockwork OrangeSalò, or the 120 Days of Sodom
"The new legislation is absurd and surreal," Itziar Bilbao Urrutia, a dominatrix who produces porn with a feminist theme added to Vice UK. "I mean, why ban facesitting? What's so dangerous about it? It's a harmless activity that most femdom performers, myself included, do fully dressed anyway. Its power is symbolic: woman on top, unattainable."
In a piece for The Independent, award-winning erotic film director Erika Lust said that she believes "we need to rethink what is offensive or dangerous and what is, in fact, normal human nature, and remember that it’s more important to educate than regulate."
The Department for Culture, Media & Sport insists the BBFC's R18 certificate is a "tried and tested" method for protecting children.
"The legislation provides the same level of protection to the online world that exists on the high street in relation to the sale of physical DVDs," a spokesperson told us.
"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."
So Dakka, our lovely British government is once more attempting to censor pornography, despite having failed last year.
Better get stockpiling my fellow Brits, soon the time of the prudish shall be upon us....
So... apparently, the women who make British porn can no longer enjoy their work? One of the things banned is female ejactulation... so I guess the women can never achieve climax in the workplace
I think it's related to the actual making of pornographic material. Apparently those acts are dangerous...
You can still view it.
Bit of a bizarre thing for the Government to be pushing through to be honest.
It's almost like our countries have flipped rolls. We left because the Brits were to scandalous and sexual! Now we are basically Rome incarnate as far as sex and depravity goes, and you lot are becoming the prudes!
Didn't you read the article? No one's coming anywhere!
Exactly what I was thinking.
I wouldn't doubt that the "No female ejaculation" is trying to tie into the "No watersports" thing. Some people see the difference, some people don't...
Didn't you read the article? No one's coming anywhere!
Exactly what I was thinking.
I wouldn't doubt that the "No female ejaculation" is trying to tie into the "No watersports" thing. Some people see the difference, some people don't...
Officially female ejaculation doesn't exist so it's classed as urination by the BBFC.
Didn't you read the article? No one's coming anywhere!
Exactly what I was thinking.
I wouldn't doubt that the "No female ejaculation" is trying to tie into the "No watersports" thing. Some people see the difference, some people don't...
Officially female ejaculation doesn't exist so it's classed as urination by the BBFC.
Breotan wrote: I'm pretty sure this is just reaction to 50 Shades of Grey.
Sidenote, during thanksgiving, at the dinner table, my 80 year aunt, my cousin in law where discussing how they can't wait for the movie. I nearly vomitted
Breotan wrote: I'm pretty sure this is just reaction to 50 Shades of Grey.
Sidenote, during thanksgiving, at the dinner table, my 80 year aunt, my cousin in law where discussing how they can't wait for the movie. I nearly vomitted
I wish politics would just stop with this kind of moralising rubbish.
Though I guess they are just trying to cut down the stuff the NSA and other agencies have to look through while they are invading your privacy "because terrorism".
We get (US of A) get bashed because of the 2nd Amendment
Yet so far all we get is warning on copying the content of the DVD and distributing it freely.....and you guys/girls (UK) government goes all after your porn.....
I'm hearing the death knell of porn in the UK First to go will be the strip clubs
Sigvatr wrote: You can't stop people from watching them.
I wouldn't put it past the UK government to try. After all, these are the scumbags who responded to ISIS making public announcements by saying that any Brit who sees one has committed a crime.
Sigvatr wrote: You can't stop people from watching them.
I wouldn't put it past the UK government to try. After all, these are the scumbags who responded to ISIS making public announcements by saying that any Brit who sees one has committed a crime.
AlexHolker wrote: I wouldn't put it past the UK government to try. After all, these are the scumbags who responded to ISIS making public announcements by saying that any Brit who sees one has committed a crime.
What?
Do you mean anybody who watches the ISIS videos?
Source?
Here's an article about it. This one says that Scotland Yard is probably full of gak, but that doesn't excuse making the threat in the first place.
Jihadin wrote: We get (US of A) get bashed because of the 2nd Amendment
Yet so far all we get is warning on copying the content of the DVD and distributing it freely.....and you guys/girls (UK) government goes all after your porn.....
Medium of Death wrote: To what benefit is there to watching these videos? To whom would you show them?
Who cares? Why should anyone have to justify their actions in this case? You can have your personal belief that watching the videos is wrong, but that doesn't mean you get to have the government enforce that belief.
Sigvatr wrote: You can't stop people from watching them.
I wouldn't put it past the UK government to try. After all, these are the scumbags who responded to ISIS making public announcements by saying that any Brit who sees one has committed a crime.
The thing I find amusing (It's really not) is that you can't even say "Oh, but you can just do it in your own home" because technically S/M that causes marks is illegal, as you can't legally consent to bodily harm.
Goliath wrote: The thing I find amusing (It's really not) is that you can't even say "Oh, but you can just do it in your own home" because technically S/M that causes marks is illegal, as you can't legally consent to bodily harm.
Medium of Death wrote: To what benefit is there to watching these videos? To whom would you show them?
Who cares? Why should anyone have to justify their actions in this case? You can have your personal belief that watching the videos is wrong, but that doesn't mean you get to have the government enforce that belief.
I was genuinely curious as to why you'd need or want to watch a full beheading video? There's initial morbid curiosity but considering we've got the threat of radical Muslims using this as material for persuasion it's a fairly big deal. ISIS threatening to detonate a dirty bomb in London (lies or otherwise) and putting out highly polished videos gives them some credibility if it's allowed to be disseminated. Maybe when you start thinking about people like Anjem Choudary you could perhaps understand why it might not be appropriate to let this be so easily viewed.
This is where it starts to get into censorship, but then again conflict is always censored. Our news is censored, polished up and broadcast. It's hardly a new concept.
Goliath wrote: The thing I find amusing (It's really not) is that you can't even say "Oh, but you can just do it in your own home" because technically S/M that causes marks is illegal, as you can't legally consent to bodily harm.
Goliath wrote: The thing I find amusing (It's really not) is that you can't even say "Oh, but you can just do it in your own home" because technically S/M that causes marks is illegal, as you can't legally consent to bodily harm.
Goliath wrote: The thing I find amusing (It's really not) is that you can't even say "Oh, but you can just do it in your own home" because technically S/M that causes marks is illegal, as you can't legally consent to bodily harm.
Yay for the Conservative Government!
...That we don't have.
Wait, David Cameron isn't a Tory?
Wait, the government isn't a COALITION?
Okay...
Yay for the Conservative (and also Liberal Democrat, don't forget them( Government!
I can get the ones about strangulation, which as I understand it is actually very dangerous, and penetration with objects associated with violence (whatever that specifically means...) but the rest strike me as rather odd.
I certainly hope that if this stuff is being banned, vore* is completely illegal. I mean... come on...
*If you don't know what this is, don't look it up. You're better off not knowing.
LordofHats wrote: I can get the ones about strangulation, which as I understand it is actually very dangerous, and penetration with objects associated with violence (whatever that specifically means...) but the rest strike me as rather odd.
no penetration with objects associated with violence can mean a lot of things
more nanny state-ism from the nanny state, legislating morality one step at a time.
LordofHats wrote: I can get the ones about strangulation, which as I understand it is actually very dangerous, and penetration with objects associated with violence (whatever that specifically means...) but the rest strike me as rather odd.
no penetration with objects associated with violence can mean a lot of things
more nanny state-ism from the nanny state, legislating morality one step at a time.
Feth me that second one looks fun.
Reminds me of the the time I got my ass kicked by a friend fighting with plastic lightsabers. I was just playing, and not actually trying to hurt her or break the toy lightsabers but feth me did she take it seriously.
Vore = sexualizing the idea of being devoured and/or devouring. Like being eaten by a giant snake. Really, I'm not sure why this is considered so horrifying to think about that it needs special warnings. On the scale from "sex through a hole in the sheet to make a baby" to "OH DEAR GOD WHAT AM I WATCHING" it barely rates a "kind of weird".
Vore = sexualizing the idea of being devoured and/or devouring. Like being eaten by a giant snake. Really, I'm not sure why this is considered so horrifying to think about that it needs special warnings. On the scale from "sex through a hole in the sheet to make a baby" to "OH DEAR GOD WHAT AM I WATCHING" it barely rates a "kind of weird".
To be fair for a lot of normal people that would scale pretty high along with probably even moderate bdsm When it comes to fetishes in the grand scheme of things it's got nothing but I think some people don't know the worst of them
As per the ones censored. I can see a few like a certain one involving asphyxiation but stuff like female ejaculation sounds silly to limit.
Speaking of vorarephilia... I recall seeing a recent promo for a show about a guy who's going to don a suit of body armour and cameras so he film himself being swallowed alive by a python or anaconda snake...
This gak is actually possible and is/has been done for entertainment purposes.
It just means the UK pron industry is doomed. All the decent stuff (and most of the UK outfits moved there ages ago) comes from eastern Europe or the USA.
Thousands of high quality pron, then theres always amateur stuff which will never die and cannot be stopped by BBFC.
I do like how the BBFC believes it has an effect though.
I have peered through the peep-hole of morality and parted the beaded curtain of truth. By the power invested in me, through the invocation of Mary Whitehouse and the Conservative Party I find you GUILTY of sexual perversion.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Female ejaculation is life threatening? Sounds sexist to me...
The guy in charge of the BBFC has gone on record as stating that despite the evidence for it's existence, Female Ejaculation is a myth, and any that is shown in video will actually just be urination, which is banned.
Goliath wrote: you can't legally consent to bodily harm.
How does denny's remain in business then?
Well, mind-bogglingly, as long as you call it a spectator sport, and sign the relevant waivers, it's perfectly fine to consent to bodily harm, so Denny's is good on all counts It's how boxing and the like are able to take place.
But yeah, the act of beating the gak out of each other for money is fine, but legally consenting adults hitting each other for pleasure is gross and wrong, and thus illegal.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Female ejaculation is life threatening? Sounds sexist to me...
The guy in charge of the BBFC has gone on record as stating that despite the evidence for it's existence, Female Ejaculation is a myth, and any that is shown in video will actually just be urination, which is banned
What is my government doing? My parents and family pay taxes for this?! Feth this, to twitter I go to complain of the government wasting time and money.
I have peered through the peep-hole of morality and parted the beaded curtain of truth. By the power invested in me, through the invocation of Mary Whitehouse and the Conservative Party I find you GUILTY of sexual perversion.
BTW, how long is it till the next election? Because I want these conservatives out asap, before they try to ban all the porns
Unless you think we are going to get a Lib Dem or Green majority not much will change. Labour were just as bad, and if UKIP do manage to edge out the Lib Dems for the third party (I hope to god they don't) then it will get worse.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Female ejaculation is life threatening? Sounds sexist to me...
The guy in charge of the BBFC has gone on record as stating that despite the evidence for it's existence, Female Ejaculation is a myth, and any that is shown in video will actually just be urination, which is banned.
Utterly stupid... It does have a ring of Victorian views on women and sex.
Goliath wrote: you can't legally consent to bodily harm.
How does denny's remain in business then?
Well, mind-bogglingly, as long as you call it a spectator sport, and sign the relevant waivers, it's perfectly fine to consent to bodily harm, so Denny's is good on all counts It's how boxing and the like are able to take place.
But yeah, the act of beating the gak out of each other for money is fine, but legally consenting adults hitting each other for pleasure is gross and wrong, and thus illegal.
There is some argument on this about the point of boxing not being to injure each other, that is merely an outcome, but with BDSM the pain and damage is the point. It's a dumb argument that basicly comes down to "I don't like this but I do like that". Its all the fault of operation spanner, which had a view of S&M much like the view of D&D being discussed in the theard on 80's gaming and heavy metal.
'Lovelies' like that in my avatar have their jobs on the line ONE1!
First: Which one is she? I don't recognize her (unlike the last two you've used).
Second: Certain British posters on Dakka are no longer allowed to make fun of us Americans for our stupid politicians, now that we have proof yours are just as stupid as ours.
Third: If boxing is legal because it's a spectator sport, why isn't BDSM porn? It's somebody getting beaten consensually for the purpose of other people watching. If porn isn't a spectator sport, I'd like to know what is.
Fourth: I had no idea the UK still had a domestic porn industry. I thought all the British porn stars moved to California and started working for Brazzers...
Steve steveson wrote: There is some argument on this about the point of boxing not being to injure each other, that is merely an outcome, but with BDSM the pain and damage is the point. It's a dumb argument that basicly comes down to "I don't like this but I do like that". Its all the fault of operation spanner, which had a view of S&M much like the view of D&D being discussed in the theard on 80's gaming and heavy metal.
The entire legal definition of assault on a person is pants on head stupid at the moment; there are definitions of different levels of assault that are just ridiculous, and dictated based on an entirely Victorian view of the world.
There is still a legal definition of assault that specifically includes the act of impeding a man in the process of escaping from a shipwreck. But somehow getting a spanking or a caning to the point of bruising is still illegal. Ridiculous.
Steve steveson wrote: There is some argument on this about the point of boxing not being to injure each other, that is merely an outcome, but with BDSM the pain and damage is the point. It's a dumb argument that basicly comes down to "I don't like this but I do like that". Its all the fault of operation spanner, which had a view of S&M much like the view of D&D being discussed in the theard on 80's gaming and heavy metal.
The entire legal definition of assault on a person is pants on head stupid at the moment; there are definitions of different levels of assault that are just ridiculous, and dictated based on an entirely Victorian view of the world.
There is still a legal definition of assault that specifically includes the act of impeding a man in the process of escaping from a shipwreck. But somehow getting a spanking or a caning to the point of bruising is still illegal. Ridiculous.
You can be guilty of assault if a person you raise your fists to fears for their safety.
'Lovelies' like that in my avatar have their jobs on the line ONE1!
First: Which one is she? I don't recognize her (unlike the last two you've used).
Second: Certain British posters on Dakka are no longer allowed to make fun of us Americans for our stupid politicians, now that we have proof yours are just as stupid as ours.
Third: If boxing is legal because it's a spectator sport, why isn't BDSM porn? It's somebody getting beaten consensually for the purpose of other people watching. If porn isn't a spectator sport, I'd like to know what is.
Fourth: I had no idea the UK still had a domestic porn industry. I thought all the British porn stars moved to California and started working for Brazzers...
Look up Isabel Ice for all her gap toothed activities - she is a keeper!.
We have a pretty good porn scene and some decent female directors.....................so I am told.
Steve steveson wrote: There is some argument on this about the point of boxing not being to injure each other, that is merely an outcome, but with BDSM the pain and damage is the point. It's a dumb argument that basicly comes down to "I don't like this but I do like that". Its all the fault of operation spanner, which had a view of S&M much like the view of D&D being discussed in the theard on 80's gaming and heavy metal.
The entire legal definition of assault on a person is pants on head stupid at the moment; there are definitions of different levels of assault that are just ridiculous, and dictated based on an entirely Victorian view of the world.
There is still a legal definition of assault that specifically includes the act of impeding a man in the process of escaping from a shipwreck. But somehow getting a spanking or a caning to the point of bruising is still illegal. Ridiculous.
I disagree.
The various levels of assault seem fairly clear and well defined. There is now recognition of mental assault, which simply was not recognised in Victorian times.
Well, given how the government is going, soon you wont; the freedom of information and the press will happily be trampled under foot in the name of morals and anti-terrorism
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Female ejaculation is life threatening? Sounds sexist to me...
The guy in charge of the BBFC has gone on record as stating that despite the evidence for it's existence, Female Ejaculation is a myth, and any that is shown in video will actually just be urination, which is banned.
Goliath wrote: you can't legally consent to bodily harm.
How does denny's remain in business then?
Well, mind-bogglingly, as long as you call it a spectator sport, and sign the relevant waivers, it's perfectly fine to consent to bodily harm, so Denny's is good on all counts It's how boxing and the like are able to take place.
But yeah, the act of beating the gak out of each other for money is fine, but legally consenting adults hitting each other for pleasure is gross and wrong, and thus illegal.
BDSM isn't a spectator sport? I mean, it has spectators, and there's a lot of physical exertion involved.
