Pornography produced in the UK was quietly censored 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).
The board's ruling on 'content that is not acceptable' 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".
While we are all for safety what adults do sexually is really no ones business but there own and as long as the performers are willing it shouldn't be regulated except for safety. The change can also be very vague giving a lot of leeway as to what is or isn't dangerous. It also leaves one wondering how long before they regulate what goes on in the bedroom, hopefully it doesn't come to that.
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rants. Show all posts
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Facebook And Censorship, My Rant
Facebook has its policies on what it deems inappropriate but in many cases they go to far while in others they let slide. I've seen many artist "friends" on Facebook have there work deleted and even some of their pages suspended as well, all because Facebook judged it to be. Facebook needs to realize there are going to be things some will have no problem with while others will and they need to be realistic about it, a couple of examples,
From Huffington Post.com
In October, Australian men's magazine Zoo Weekly posted a photo of a bikini-clad woman, cut in half at the torso, as part of its "Left or right?" game, in which the publication asks readers to choose which side they like better. The "boobs or butt" photo, which has since been removed, asked men which half they preferred and why.
Comments from Zoo Weekly fans on the disembodied woman were overtly sexist. BuzzFeed posted a screenshot of some of the comments, including "Right cause two holes are better than one" and "left cause it can still make me sandwich."
A complaint to Australia's Advertising Standards Bureau, which states thats brands are responsible for their Facebook pages, reads (via Mumbrella):
To me the photo is not overly sexist, here is a very attractive woman showing off her body, her choice by wearing that bikini, that fact is people will look and even might take pictures that will end up certain places, certain questions will be asked, and certain comments made. That doesn't make the picture sexist and there have been far worse. The comments posted above were lets just say not nice but everyone is entitled to there opinion if anything the comments should have been deleted not the picture, just my opinion.
Then there is this picture one, which I've seen more then once, this was not deleted this could be taken the wrong way. The women that posted this could be suggesting that the guy they're with really needs to fuck them long and hard so they can't walk afterwards, is this appropriate some will say not but it was allowed on Facebook, again my opinion is if they want to post this great and thanks for the heads up (no I was not the fucker lol if I was they won't be able to get out of bed after). Facebook needs to have clear rules for these type of things that don't border on censorship, thank you.
From Huffington Post.com
In October, Australian men's magazine Zoo Weekly posted a photo of a bikini-clad woman, cut in half at the torso, as part of its "Left or right?" game, in which the publication asks readers to choose which side they like better. The "boobs or butt" photo, which has since been removed, asked men which half they preferred and why.
Comments from Zoo Weekly fans on the disembodied woman were overtly sexist. BuzzFeed posted a screenshot of some of the comments, including "Right cause two holes are better than one" and "left cause it can still make me sandwich."
A complaint to Australia's Advertising Standards Bureau, which states thats brands are responsible for their Facebook pages, reads (via Mumbrella):
The image, disturbing nature of having a disembodied woman and the offensive, clearly sexist and even abusive nature of some responses on a page being used to advertise this product should not be allowed. Both the pictures, the questions that are posed and the responses are regularly demeaning and unacceptable to women. Women are objectified and sexualised.
To me the photo is not overly sexist, here is a very attractive woman showing off her body, her choice by wearing that bikini, that fact is people will look and even might take pictures that will end up certain places, certain questions will be asked, and certain comments made. That doesn't make the picture sexist and there have been far worse. The comments posted above were lets just say not nice but everyone is entitled to there opinion if anything the comments should have been deleted not the picture, just my opinion.
Then there is this picture one, which I've seen more then once, this was not deleted this could be taken the wrong way. The women that posted this could be suggesting that the guy they're with really needs to fuck them long and hard so they can't walk afterwards, is this appropriate some will say not but it was allowed on Facebook, again my opinion is if they want to post this great and thanks for the heads up (no I was not the fucker lol if I was they won't be able to get out of bed after). Facebook needs to have clear rules for these type of things that don't border on censorship, thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)