Watersports (& other sex acts) Banned in Uk

[Admin 14,369]

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

The UK government has recently banned several sex acts, one of which is watersports. As the article explains, this is affecting the production of this kind of porn in the UK, so I'm not entirely sure what's going to happen to UK based pee video sites.

Some of the other acts that are banned also seem like odd choices as they're very innocent - spanking? Female ejaculation?!

What's your take on this? Had you heard about this?

I couldn't actually find much information on it, but this article seems to clarify things a little.

[steve25805 121,426]

This is very worrying.

But has anyone noticed a glaring anomaly? Naughty pissing all over carpets and furniture - however much it might involve vandalism and property damage - would be fine to screen yet watersports between consenting adults would not be.

I don't think this law will have an immediate impact until someone is prosecuted for innocent watersports. Then it is up to the jury to decide. If they convict it will send shockwaves through the whole British porn scene with producers and performers either working abroad or leaving the scene altogether.

Hopefully, though, it won't come to that. In recent years juries of ordinary people have proven consistently more liberal-minded than law-makers and enforcers. The police in the UK eventually gave up trying to prosecute pee porn producers under the obscenity laws because juries were refusing to convict, unconvinced that such material had any ability to "deprave or corrupt". Police forces therefore gave up and focussed their attentions exclusively on paedophiles and sex slavery instead, which they obviously should have been doing all along instead of trying to crack down on harmless consensual sexual activity.

However, have the politicians circumvented that by no longer making it necessary to go to court, and making censors alone judge and jury? That would be worrying.

And - worryingly - if it does start restricting pee porn effectively, sites such as this and Peesearch could be threatened unless they either host from overseas or cease the publication of videos featuring pee drinking or peeing on each other.

This is something we have all been familiar with all our lives - the desire of the nanny State to regulate our sex lives, limit our sexual freedoms and restrict our sexual pleasures.

We are not hurting anyone. Leave us the fuck alone, you politician hypocrites!

[wetmanjf 2,745]

I agree Steve. This is why I am wondering what to do with my own Website. While I am in the USA my website is based on a UK server and I can't run a site that could be deemed "Illegal"

Wetmanjf

[steve25805 121,426]

I notice the government defending these restrictions on the basis that they are "tried and tested" when it comes to "protecting minors". What!!! What the fuck does this have to do with protecting minors? All underage activities are already illegal!

How is preventing the depiction of an adult enjoying being peed on by another adult any different in nature to depicting an adult enjoying being fucked by another adult? What has banning the former got to do with protecting minors? And stuff will still be streamed in from abroad anyway!

No, this is all about restricting adult freedoms and has fuck all to do with minors!

[VeezKnight 8]

I agree Steve. This is why I am wondering what to do with my own Website. While I am in the USA my website is based on a UK server and I can't run a site that could be deemed "Illegal"

Wetmanjf

Since the ruling apparently applies only to content that is "created in the UK", it would depend on how one interprets the content on this site. The server may be located in the UK, but does that mean that the content is "created" in the UK. It seems to me as though it does not. It would be like viewing pee porn that is created offshore on a computer or TV that is located in the UK. Christ, the effing lawyers could fight over this for years.

[F.W 5,655]

I bet the Home Secretary(a woman) has caught her hubby tonking off to piss porn,so shes decided to outlaw it!:laugh:

[F.W 5,655]

How can any activity between consenting adults,or well paid consenting adults be the realm of Govt to decide whether its ok or not?Paedos just chuck them in acid,end of.Is this aimed at sites like "Piss Mops",where girls,who seem to be loving it by the way,are peed on by a few guys?

[uniloo 95]

I notice the government defending these restrictions on the basis that they are "tried and tested" when it comes to "protecting minors". What!!! What the fuck does this have to do with protecting minors? All underage activities are already illegal!

How is preventing the depiction of an adult enjoying being peed on by another adult any different in nature to depicting an adult enjoying being fucked by another adult? What has banning the former got to do with protecting minors? And stuff will still be streamed in from abroad anyway!

The government's argument is that it is trying it to prevent minors seeing depictions such things as consenting adults peeing on each other. They are hoping that minors will not see such things 'in the flesh' as they expect the consenting adults performing these 'to-bebanned' acts to ensure that they do not them where minors can see.

[steve25805 121,426]

What gets me though is that there are gore sites out there showing actual videos of beheadings, drug gang murders, vigilante burnings alive of supposed witches or robbers, all forms of executions, etc, just for people to enjoy watching them.

And what do our politicians do? They ignore that - which is surely far more likely to fuck up the minds of young people seeing it - and focus instead on someone enjoying a harmless splash of pee from someone else. If what is being portrayed is consensual, and no one is in any way being harmed, where is the fucking problem?

It's as if normalising every kind of sadistic killing is fine, yet consensual sexual activity that the fucking vicar might disapprove of is a terrible evil?

They've got their fucking priorities wrong. You know what kind of depravity all these death-for-pleasure videos are generating? Example: in America six months ago there was a car crash with a couple trapped inside. The car caught fire and they pleaded for help. But of all those rushing to the scene, only one guy tried to help. The others all just got their camera phones out, ignoring the cries for help in order to film their deaths instead. The lone guy on his own couldn't do enough to save them, and had not the strength to get them out without help. The flames took hold as the guy tried desperately to extinguish them with a fire extinguisher, but it wasn't enough. The victims began prolonged screaming in agony as they started to be cremated alive - at which point one woman got in so close with her camera phone to get the best possible footage of their screaming agonies that she was getting in the way of the guy still desperately trying to help, and had to be ordered to back the fuck off.

Think about that. Horrible death as a viewing spectacle, something to be enjoyed and shared online, has become so normalised that when ordinary people stumbling across it see two victims, their priority is to film their agonised deaths as closely as possible, rather than thinking of trying to help.

And yet the death sites are not being targeted. Innocent pleasures that we enjoy are instead! And you know what? I bet that twisted bitch who got in real close to view that screaming couple burning alive would be one of the first to call US sick freaks!

My point? Why the fuck come after innocent sexual activities between consenting adults, when there is far sicker shit degrading human morality to a vastly greater extent?

[F.W 5,655]

Also,most western Govts,whilst railing in horror at the fact 2 adults might want to pee on each other,they allow "religious organisations" to butcher defenceless animals alive in the name of superstition.

[F.W 5,655]

Also,i grew up with a pee fetish,despite NEVER seeing any adults peeing on each other.So in 200 years,people will still have pee fetishes.Regardless of our sanctimonious Govt wishes!Are they now trying to determine what adults can and cannot find sexually stimulating?Paedos die of course,but adults should be free to express their sexuality.If Homosexuality can be considered "normal",surely urolagnia is too?

[P-Spud 1,324]

I don't know much about the political climate in Britain, but if the religious right comes to power in America as seems likely, look for a much more repressive attitude in these matters.

[Sally Westbury 1,167]

It's a minefield out there. I'm sure that my daughter has been exposed to a great deal more than ever I did at her age. Pornography...depictions of sexual acts and fetishes has been around since cave painting. Artists like 'Turner' made and drew pornographic drawings, what of Courbet's The Source...and dozens of others. There's a difference between erotica and pornography, the latter tending to be more about exploitation. If it can be deemed to be 'consensual' between adults then we should be able to express our desires. Anyone with a camera on their phones can make pornography...of any nature, (you don't have to go to a second party to get your films and photos developed). We seem to have more 'moral' censorship under a Conservative Government, and it does seem that our private thoughts and actions are being monitored by the state. It is nigh on impossible to eradicate any of the acts mentioned. There should be a concentration on protecting children and educating them more clearly about the dangers of the internet and social networking sites.

[likesToLick 9,850]

There is a larger agenda. The bigots of the Religious Reich want to ban sex altogether. Since they failed at banning sex, they tried to ban erotic art (also known as pornography) Since they failed at that, they try to nibble at the edges. Why not attack gay men because they are in a minority? That worked for a few years, but now it is failing too, so the bigots must find a new minority to attack. I'm guessing that wet sex is a target that they hope will get them up onto the scoreboard again.

[Lickher2 282]

More supressionism . . . . or maybe the Gov't are just a bunch of Wooly Woofters