Image: Ludo In case you've missed all of the coverage so far, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that on Tuesday, the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 was brought in, censoring pornography by banning the depictions of a list of acts. It's not illegal to watch porn featuring these acts if it was made abroad, but none of them can be depicted on video on demand services made in the UK. The list includes spanking, caning, restraint, watersports and strangulation. So maybe you're thinking that if you're not into kinky sex this doesn't affect you. But that's not all: face sitting and female ejaculation are all also on the list.
Try and think of an argument against female ejaculation that doesn't involve a hefty dose of misogyny. I couldn't, but it turns out that the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) thinks it has. According to Vice, who went and asked them, the BBFC's concern is that they can't distinguish between female ejaculation and urine. And urine is, always, obscene.
Leaving aside for one moment how boring a lot of these sex lives must be, I don't even understand the underlying reasoning here. It's very hard to see anything beyond 'ew, I don't like that.' I don't like fishing, but I'm not on some crusade to ban Robson Green and his big tackle from my screens.
When we are talking about consenting adults performing sexual acts on camera for other consenting adults to watch (and anything that doesn't fit that definition isn't porn but abuse of one type or another), what really grosses me out is the government stepping in and listing exactly which acts are and are not acceptable. Why exactly should they have that ability? Do we want government to start legislating on which sexual acts are acceptable even when no camera is present? It's happened before of course and to some extent still does (I am going to re-stress that I continue to talk here about activities conducted between consenting adults).
Leaving aside for one moment how boring a lot of these sex lives must be, I don't even understand the underlying reasoning here. It's very hard to see anything beyond 'ew, I don't like that.' I don't like fishing, but I'm not on some crusade to ban Robson Green and his big tackle from my screens.
When we are talking about consenting adults performing sexual acts on camera for other consenting adults to watch (and anything that doesn't fit that definition isn't porn but abuse of one type or another), what really grosses me out is the government stepping in and listing exactly which acts are and are not acceptable. Why exactly should they have that ability? Do we want government to start legislating on which sexual acts are acceptable even when no camera is present? It's happened before of course and to some extent still does (I am going to re-stress that I continue to talk here about activities conducted between consenting adults).
| Really the only laws I want governing porn and workers in porn are those ensuring workers are well treated and fairly paid. In other words, the same laws I want governing all forms of work. | I don't like fishing, but I'm not on some crusade to ban Robson Green and his big tackle from my screens. |
And, as many people have pointed out, these regulations will mean pornography will focus even more on traditional gender roles and male fantasy. It penalises those with minority and marginalised sexualities. This is why we should all care about this law, regardless of what you do or don't like to do in the bedroom - regulation of sexual expression is never going to give women, LGBT people and sexual minorities more rights; it's a means of attacking these groups.
And it's not just (just!) sexual regulation that's the issue here. With the economy in the state that it's in, do we really want to end up outsourcing jobs in porn to Europe? That sounds like a joke doesn't it? Nope, it's already happening (NSFW link). This law is a mess, and we can only be grateful it is gaining attention.
Spanking superstar Pandora Blake has a fantastic post with a round up of media coverage and commentary (NSFW link). At the bottom is a list of things you can do if this kind of censorship and control makes you angry. To quote:
Squeamish Louise
And it's not just (just!) sexual regulation that's the issue here. With the economy in the state that it's in, do we really want to end up outsourcing jobs in porn to Europe? That sounds like a joke doesn't it? Nope, it's already happening (NSFW link). This law is a mess, and we can only be grateful it is gaining attention.
Spanking superstar Pandora Blake has a fantastic post with a round up of media coverage and commentary (NSFW link). At the bottom is a list of things you can do if this kind of censorship and control makes you angry. To quote:
- Write to your MP. You can cite this EU equality legislation if you like.
- Sign this Change.org petition and this 38 Degrees petition, although the Government are only obliged to take any notice of official petitions. We submitted an official one this morning, I'll let you know when it’s been approved. Meanwhile you might as well sign the others anyway, it costs nothing and will only take a minute.
- Donate to Backlash UK, the sexual liberties lobby group who are campaigning against this legislation. Backlash maintain a legal defence fund to help those targeted by this sort of legislation. I've just set up a monthly £20 donation. These are the people who will help us if we get targeted. Give them your money.
- Come to this protest outside Parliament at midday on Friday 12th December.
Squeamish Louise
RSS Feed