Tories outlaw female orgasms

UK produced porn you mean? Its not illegal to watch porn with that stuff.

I don't particularly agree with this, but some are tricky to argue against. Strangulation and child role play. There is plenty thats already illegal.

The real issue here is about not making it so easy for kids to access the stuff.

Ah, another censorship loving **** using 'the children' to control people's sexuality. Thanks for the input

Reply 21

The Warsmith

18

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

How will female porn stars that are "shooters" stop themselves from cumming during porn? Will they think of Cameron and Clegg's faces?

Probably so :confused:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 22

Quady

20

Original post by MattyR2895

Ah, another censorship loving **** using 'the children' to control people's sexuality. Thanks for the input

What is it that you have a problem with?

- That 13 year olds are censored from watching fisting and water sports? or

- People should validate their age to watch the fisting and water sports?

Thanks for the input.

Reply 23

Danno190

13

Mary Whitehouse would be proud.

Reply 24

Chief Wiggum

20

Wow, that is truly bizarre. Completely disagree with that.

Reply 25

Little Popcorns

21

Original post by clonedmemories

There's no scientific conclusion on this as of yet. The best article I could find on the matter was a review article of a variety of different studies, which suggests that ultimately, the two are distinct. However, some of the studies they discuss do conclude one way or the other, and that on the face of it, without biochemical analysis of the fluids, it's impossible to distinguish between the two.

Right well they still use simulators in porn and that's a fact... And the reason they're banning it is because it's not representative of anything close to reality

Reply 26

clonedmemories

16

Original post by Little Popcorns

Right well they still use simulators in porn and that's a fact... And the reason they're banning it is because it's not representative of anything close to reality

I was under the impression they banned it because they believed there was no distinction between female ejaculation/squirting/urinating. Which the study I posted refutes, and is still arguable outside that realm.

If it's simulated? Who cares? Doesn't stop people watching porn anyway, particularly when even the sex is frequently simulated, not least any kind of orgasm. And they've given no actual reason as to why they've banned it from what I can see. Porn is hardly reflective of reality in more ways that just squirting.

Reply 27

MattyR2895

9

Original post by Quady

What is it that you have a problem with?

- That 13 year olds are censored from watching fisting and water sports? or

- People should validate their age to watch the fisting and water sports?

Thanks for the input.

This law (and the one on rape porn) are not just preventing kids from watching, but are telling people that they cannot even produce that kind of pornography. That is effectively censoring it from everyone, and saying that some people's sexuality is 'wrong' and that they shouldn't have such thoughts, in other words, thought police.

Also, children aren't meant to watch any kind of porn. What difference does it make if it's fisting or water sports, or just ordinary sex?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 28

TheonlyMrsHolmes

19

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

"A long list of sex acts just got banned in UK porn"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html

Here they are...

Spanking

Caning

Aggressive whipping

Penetration by any object "associated with violence"

Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)

Urolagnia (known as "water sports" :wink:

Role-playing as non-adults

Physical restraint

Humiliation

Female ejaculation

Strangulation

Facesitting

Fisting

I don't see anything wrong with the ones I have highlighted....

Don't know whats wrong with Female ejaculation...women can ejaculate "squirt" and it can be natural, sooooo don't really know why thats wrong but okay...

What is wrong with face sitting? Unless it offends the chair, I don't really see what is wrong with it...

Nothing wrong with spanking, obviously consented and safe, but nothing wrong with it.

Caning/aggressive whipping and physical restraint, not exactly nice to watch in my opinion, but at the end of the day porn starts are actors, who are paid, who do consent(hopefully if everything is carried out safely), if it's all consensual and legal I suppose it is okay. Also as long as someone isn't being hurt, and lines aren't being crossed etc. But at the end of the day there are porn stars who "specialise"in that type of thing so meh...don't really see the problem.

Humiliation isn't exactly wrong either, it's a fetish to some, again not very pleasant but if porn stars are doing their job safely and everything is safe it isn't exactly harming anyone.

The rest I agree with...
I think there should be more focus on the porn industry itself rather than what they are filming, because the guidelines seem sort of vague in my opinion...

Reply 29

username402722

19

I thought that the Tories would only have heard of spanking and caning- those who went to fee-paying schools anyway.

Reply 30

Quady

20

Original post by MattyR2895

This law (and the one on rape porn) are not just preventing kids from watching, but are telling people that they cannot even produce that kind of pornography. That is effectively censoring it from everyone, and saying that some people's sexuality is 'wrong' and that they shouldn't have such thoughts, in other words, thought police.

I agree.

But if you read my post, my point was that the real problem is about the ability to access this content without ID checks rather than the content itself. Although strangulation should probably be banned IMHO.

So rape, baby sex, bestiality and public sex should be legalised then?

Edit
You realise that banning production doesn't ban viewing right? You're banned from viewing UK produced versions of that content but there is more than enough made elsewhere and more than enough of a back catalogue.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 31

Little Popcorns

21

Original post by clonedmemories

I was under the impression they banned it because they believed there was no distinction between female ejaculation/squirting/urinating. Which the study I posted refutes, and is still arguable outside that realm.

If it's simulated? Who cares? Doesn't stop people watching porn anyway, particularly when even the sex is frequently simulated, not least any kind of orgasm. And they've given no actual reason as to why they've banned it from what I can see. Porn is hardly reflective of reality in more ways that just squirting.

Well whatever the reason we're not going to agree but however you look at it how it looks in porn is bloody ridiculous. So bye bye wee wees.

Reply 32

spanker

19

Well I'm out of a job then aren't I?

Reply 33

Chief Wiggum

20

Original post by Quady

Edit
You realise that banning production doesn't ban viewing right? You're banned from viewing UK produced versions of that content but there is more than enough made elsewhere and more than enough of a back catalogue.

It's a matter of principle though...

Reply 34

thecatwithnohat

20

They're probably referring to squirters, because it looks like they're peeing everywhere :rofl:

Reply 35

Quady

20

Original post by Chief Wiggum

It's a matter of principle though...

Could you explain the principle?

Reply 36

Chief Wiggum

20

Original post by Quady

Could you explain the principle?

lol it's just a saying.

I just meant that despite people saying, "well you can still watch it if you want", I can't see any logical reason for the production to be banned, provided everyone consents. Why should you ban consenting adults from doing things that aren't even harmful?!

Reply 37

HigherMinion

5

And yet, the most disgusting act has yet to be banned in porn: consensual missionary sex for the sole purpose of procreation. Utterly disgraceful act.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 38

Quady

20

Original post by Chief Wiggum

lol it's just a saying.

I just meant that despite people saying, "well you can still watch it if you want", I can't see any logical reason for the production to be banned, provided everyone consents. Why should you ban consenting adults from doing things that aren't even harmful?!

Consent here us a little bit tricky.

The performers are doing it for money, at some point that makes the consent coerced (depending on the performer's circumstances). Tricky to know if they are being fisted out of love of their art and performance or because they have to.

I'm mostly playing devils advocate here, but I don't think its entirely stupid.