The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rushy on December 02, 2014, 04:34:23 PM
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html
I really have to wonder what your politicians are sitting around doing if they drummed up the time to write this stuff into law.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html
I really have to wonder what your politicians are sitting around doing if they drummed up the time to write this stuff into law.
Thankfully, there was no mention of bestiality...
-
The UK doesn't like fun
-
The truly shocking thing to note here is that apparently there are still people who buy porn.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html
I really have to wonder what your politicians are sitting around doing if they drummed up the time to write this stuff into law.
They're busy catering to muslim needs.
-
>spanking
>facesitting
>female ejaculation
What the hell is wrong with the UK that it's banned to see a woman orgasm, Jesus
-
They don't know what it looks like and it scares them.
-
How can you bam something that doesn't exist??
-
So this is a very disingenuous description of the actual law passed (http://legislation.data.gov.uk/cy/uksi/2014/2916/made/data.htm?wrap=true). Who knew?
Oh, and here are the classification guidelines (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/BBFC%20Classification%20Guidelines%202014_5.pdf). Sorry, junker, bestiality is off-limits :(
-
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/dec/12/face-sitting-protest-outside-parliament-against-new-porn-rules
-
>spanking
>facesitting
>female ejaculation
What the hell is wrong with the UK that it's banned to see a woman orgasm, Jesus
What? There is no such thing as female ejaculation. It is a porn creation. Orgasms are fine. Not on the list.
In the United Kingdom, the British Board of Film Classification has banned films alleged to show female ejaculation, claiming that the expert medical advice it received was that there is no such thing as female ejaculation, and therefore the films deemed to show urine.[99][100] Urination during sex is considered to be obscenity under English Law.
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/citogenesis.png)
- The Independent produces a list of 10 acts, doesn't reference source or substantiate claim, merely stating that these laws effectively restrict stuff.
- Everyone references The Independent.
- People flip their shit.
When are we going to learn to treat new media with the caution they require?
-
Regardless of whether it is correct or not, the point of the thread is to show evidence that the UK is a silly place, which I think facesitting protests qualify as.
-
I dunno m8. Which one is sillier?
UK protests: Somewhat kinky somewhat erotic acts... I guess?
USA protests: no justice no peace howdy y'awl let's burn down our towns :^)
-
I dunno m8. Which one is sillier?
UK protests: Somewhat kinky somewhat erotic acts... I guess?
USA protests: no justice no peace howdy y'awl let's burn down our towns :^)
I think you are confusing the US with France.
-
I dunno m8. Which one is sillier?
UK protests: Somewhat kinky somewhat erotic acts... I guess?
USA protests: no justice no peace howdy y'awl let's burn down our towns :^)
I'm not sure "silly" is the best word to describe people burning down their own town to totally show the gubmint who is boss. The term might have a broader use in the UK, but I'm using the American (proper) English.
-
Regardless of whether it is correct or not, the point of the thread is to show evidence that the UK is a silly place, which I think facesitting protests qualify as.
This week I had to google 'rectal hydration' which your own government likes to use as a method of interrogation. Nuff said.
-
I'm not sure "silly" is the best word to describe people burning down their own town to totally show the gubmint who is boss. The term might have a broader use in the UK, but I'm using the American (proper) English.
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 dunno m8. Which one is sillier?
UK protests: Somewhat kinky somewhat erotic acts... I guess?
USA protests: no justice no peace howdy y'awl let's burn down our towns :^)
What does that have to do with the UK being a silly place
-
What does that have to do with the UK being a silly place
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. I propose that America is much sillier.
-
Okay, what does America being sillier than the UK have to do with whether or not the UK is silly
-
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.
-
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
-
Which means that, were America used as the frame of reference, the UK is not silly.
-
It is worth noting that this discussion is entirely subjective. Some people fuck trees.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
No, it isn't. rif.org
Yes it is, rif.org
Wow, such content, very debate.
-
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.
-
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
-
Well the UK doesn't allow spanking in porn, sooo....
-
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.
-
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.
-
Can we please stop derailing the thread now?
ok (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2150.0)
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.
-
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?
-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/23/man-prison-job-too-early-morning
This guy lost his parole because his job started 45 minutes too early.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/23/man-prison-job-too-early-morning
This guy lost his parole because his job started 45 minutes too early.
We did that so an immigrant could take the job instead, reassuring us of our righteousness in complaining about immigrants taking all our jobs.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/23/glasgow-crash-tweet_n_6371428.html
This man was arrested for making a joke about the garbage truck that ran people over in Glasgow. Yes, the joke was in bad taste, but it's still a joke. Why are the UK police busy arresting people making jokes instead of pedos? What a silly place.
This was the tweet that warranted an arrest:
So a bin lorry has apparently driven in 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day