[Snupes]

Okay, what does America being sillier than the UK have to do with whether or not the UK is silly

[Pete Svarrior]

Okay, what does America being sillier than the UK have to do with whether or not the UK is silly

Since "silly" is a relative term, we need to establish a frame of reference for it to be relevant - otherwise it would be meaningless, or downright silly.

[Snupes]

Right, but saying "America is sillier" doesn't add anything in the way of whether or not the UK is silly, it just establishes that America is sillier

[Pete Svarrior]

Which means that, were America used as the frame of reference, the UK is not silly.

[Ghost of V]

It is worth noting that this discussion is entirely subjective. Some people fuck trees.

[Rushy]

It is worth noting that this discussion is entirely subjective. Some people fuck trees.

It should be illegal, I'm pretty sure trees can't consent.

[Ghost of V]

It is worth noting that this discussion is entirely subjective. Some people fuck trees.

It should be illegal, I'm pretty sure trees can't consent.

Well they don't say no.

[Snupes]

Which means that, were America used as the frame of reference, the UK is not silly.

With that logic there's only one silly place in the world, whichever one is "silliest", and the rest aren't silly since they aren't as silly as that one place

[Particle Person]

Which means that, were America used as the frame of reference, the UK is not silly.

With that logic there's only one silly place in the world, whichever one is "silliest", and the rest aren't silly since they aren't as silly as that one place

There are different degrees of silliness. It isn't a binary scale.

[Pete Svarrior]

There are different degrees of silliness. It isn't a binary scale.

I've explained it to her three times now. I'm thinking she might be 'aving a little giggle at this point.

[Rushy]

There are different degrees of silliness. It isn't a binary scale.

Except a binary scale is exactly what PP₁ is proposing.

I've explained it to her three times now. I'm thinking she might be 'aving a little giggle at this point.

Your argument is that "the US is silly therefore the UK is not" is patently dumb.

[Particle Person]

There are different degrees of silliness. It isn't a binary scale.

Except a binary scale is exactly what PP₁ is proposing.

No, it isn't. rif.org

[Rushy]

No, it isn't. rif.org

Yes it is, rif.org

Wow, such content, very debate.

[Pete Svarrior]

Your argument is that "the US is silly therefore the UK is not" is patently dumb.

The grammar of that sentence is almost as bad as the assertions made. The others are right, Rushy. You're getting too old for this.

[Rushy]

The grammar of that sentence is almost as bad as the assertions made. The others are right, Rushy. You're getting too old for this.

godwin's law you lose lol

[rooster]

Well the UK doesn't allow spanking in porn, sooo....

[Saddam Hussein]

I'm having a bit of difficulty verifying the claims in the original article too.  It cites a law, which, if I understand it correctly, says that online videos are now subject to the same restrictions as regular videos, which would include the laws prohibiting obscene elements.  But I can't find the list of sex acts that are now apparently prohibited in any law.  Maybe it's that courts struck down each sex act individually as they were challenged?  What Thork posted seems to support that idea, at least as far as female ejaculation goes, but frankly, I can't bring myself to research the judicial history of the depiction of every single one of those sex acts.

[xasop]

Since "silly" is a relative term

I don't know about that:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/silly

showing a lack of thought or judgment; not serious and not showing much intelligence

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly

: having or showing a lack of thought, understanding, or good judgment : foolish or stupid
: not practical or sensible
: not serious, meaningful, or important

Yeah, I'd say it's pretty silly.

I don't see anything relative in there. Subjective, certainly; but with well-defined parameters for what is foolish, stupid, practical, sensible, serious, meaningful and important, these definitions are absolute.

Can we please stop derailing the thread now? Despite Rushy's attempt to troll his own thread, the link in the OP is a valid point of discussion.

[Pete Svarrior]

Can we please stop derailing the thread now?

ok

I'm having a bit of difficulty verifying the claims in the original article too.  It cites a law, which, if I understand it correctly, says that online videos are now subject to the same restrictions as regular videos, which would include the laws prohibiting obscene elements.  But I can't find the list of sex acts that are now apparently prohibited in any law.

Every time the BBFC were asked about this, they said "We're just making sure that VOD is subject to the same regulations as other means of selling porn". No one is actually banning anything.

Maybe it's that courts struck down each sex act individually as they were challenged?  What Thork posted seems to support that idea, at least as far as female ejaculation goes, but frankly, I can't bring myself to research the judicial history of the depiction of every single one of those sex acts.

Never take anything Thork says seriously. From one of the references on that Wikipedia article:

The BBFC responded to research on female ejaculation submitted to the BBFC by Feminists Against Censorship:

If I may clarify our position, the Board does not in fact take any view on whether or not female ejaculation exists. As you admit in your letter this is a controversial and much-debated area with a range of views being taken amongst medical professionals. At the most basic level, however, the Board is content that the pornographic tapes so far presented to us as examples of 'female ejaculation' are in fact nothing other than straightforward scenes of urination masquerading as 'female ejaculation'. This has been confirmed by a female sexual health expert who the Board has consulted on a range of issues relating to videos intended for the 'R18' category.

Quite the opposite of attempting to confront the issue of female ejaculation in a reassuring, sympathetic or informative light, the tapes in question appear to be nothing more than a cynical attempt on the part of porn distributors to get around the constraints imposed on urolagnia in sex tapes by the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act. It is worth noting that the kind of material that the Board has been cutting is regularly sold as 'orolagnia' in other European countries (France, Germany, Netherlands, etc) where there is no equivalent legal restriction on the use of urine in sex videos. Indeed, although videos featuring urolagnia are very much in evidence on the continent, videos purporting to show 'female ejaculation' seem to be invisible. Perhaps female ejaculation is less exciting (or profitable) to pornographers and their viewers than urination? Generally speaking sex videos of the type encountered at 'R18' neither seek to inform nor educate about female (or male) sexuality but merely offer graphic (and grossly distorted) views of sex for the arousal of viewers. Indeed, as you acknowledge in your letter "much of the material [the Board] passes with an 'R18' certificate does not necessarily represent the sexual experiences of all women".

To conclude, the Board remains open minded about the issue of female ejaculation but we have yet to be presented with any pornographic video that has convinced us - or our medical advisor - that it consists of anything other than an excuse to display scenes of urolagnia. Such scenes are regularly found obscene by juries in the UK and therefore cannot be classified.

[Thork]

Generally speaking sex videos of the type encountered at 'R18' neither seek to inform nor educate about female (or male) sexuality

I'm not sure anyone watches porn to be educated. Is that what they think the videos are for?