Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

(UK) Porn - What's legal and what isn't.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26-04-2010, 16:41
SilverShred
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 128
As anyone who's seen A Girl's Guide To 21st Century Sex will know.
A Girl's Guide To 21st Century Sex was classified as an educational program which is why erect todgers were allowed - for educational reasons**.

Obviously something like Debbie Does Dallas isn't educational and therefore would not be allowed to be aired due to erect todgers all over the place.

**Must say though, the imaginative way they placed their mini cameras for the guy's money shots was quite ground-breaking.
SilverShred is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 26-04-2010, 18:24
Kittycat73
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,742
Hmm, seems to be a bit murky then. ('Scuse the pun! ) Seems there's no deffinate yes or no answer. Obviously bar animals, children, ect.
I just don't want to go looking at something normal consenting adults do and find the cops banging on my door!
Kittycat73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 18:37
Aneechik
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 15,692
The BBFC actually issue guidance on what is legal and what is not.

any material which is in breach of the criminal law,
including material judged to be obscene under the
current interpretation of the Obscene Publications
Act 1959
material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an
interest in sexually abusive activity (for example,
paedophilia, incest or rape) which may include adults
role-playing as non-adults
the portrayal of any sexual activity which involves
lack of consent (whether real or simulated). Any form
of physical restraint which prevents participants from
indicating a withdrawal of consent
the infliction of pain or acts which may cause lasting
physical harm, whether real or (in a sexual context)
simulated. Some allowance may be made for
moderate, non-abusive, consensual activity
penetration by any object associated with violence
or likely to cause physical harm
any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does
not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing
game. Strong physical or verbal abuse, even if
consensual, is unlikely to be acceptable.
Basically watersports, fisting, spanking, bondage, handcuffs, ballgags, squirting, and bestiality, are all refused classification and are therefore banned and considered extreme porn, which carries a 2 year sentence for possession.

Incidentally, no act of Parliament legalised this as stated elsewhere in this thread, it was a judicial review of existing obscenity law in 2000.
Aneechik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 18:38
Skolastyka
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 9,470
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_by_region

^Porn laws around the world.
Skolastyka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 18:59
MrHoppy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6,694
Basically watersports, fisting, spanking, bondage, handcuffs, ballgags, squirting, and bestiality, are all refused classification and are therefore banned and considered extreme porn, which carries a 2 year sentence for possession.
I don't think that's correct. "extreme porn", or at least what the governent describe as "extreme porn" and that is banned, isn't really known, but it's certainly NOT the same thing as legally obscene, or as refused BBFC classification. In fact, for something to be illegal, it is no longer required for it to be legally obscene, and it can include cuttings of BBFC rated material, if you cut out "sexy" bits from the rest of a film!

It's mad that "squirting" is refused classification. I think the argument is that squirting doesn't exist, and it's actually wee wee. Not sure if that's actually true, but even if is is, what's wrong with wee wee?

So whilst you can't publish a DVD of the stuff you listed, you can legally own images of some of it. The "dangerous pictures" laws are not well defined, and nobody, including the police and government really know what is and isn't banned. However, i'm pretty sure you're safe with handcuffs and watersports.

With BDSM it's a pretty grey area. I'd imagine things where people are cutting eachother's bits is illegal. Mainstream BDSM I'm not so sure. Nobody is.
MrHoppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 19:08
Kittycat73
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,742
The BBFC actually issue guidance on what is legal and what is not.



Basically watersports, fisting, spanking, bondage, handcuffs, ballgags, squirting, and bestiality, are all refused classification and are therefore banned and considered extreme porn, which carries a 2 year sentence for possession.

Incidentally, no act of Parliament legalised this as stated elsewhere in this thread, it was a judicial review of existing obscenity law in 2000.
See, this is what happens. I don't know what squirting is, so usually I'd go Google it. Not now though if it's illegal!

EDIT: Just wondering, is it illegal to just look at those things (online), or download them? These things aren't very clear at all!
Kittycat73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 19:10
Skolastyka
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 9,470
See, this is what happens. I don't know what squirting is, so usually I'd go Google it. Not now though if it's illegal!
When a woman ejaculates like a man, 'squirts'.

In take it Donkey-Punching is now illegal?
Skolastyka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 19:14
Moggio
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,910
Is munting illegal as well?
Moggio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 19:16
Aneechik
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 15,692
I don't think that's correct. "extreme porn", or at least what the governent describe as "extreme porn" and that is banned, isn't really known, but it's certainly NOT the same thing as legally obscene, or as refused BBFC classification. In fact, for something to be illegal, it is no longer required for it to be legally obscene, and it can include cuttings of BBFC rated material, if you cut out "sexy" bits from the rest of a film!

It's mad that "squirting" is refused classification. I think the argument is that squirting doesn't exist, and it's actually wee wee. Not sure if that's actually true, but even if is is, what's wrong with wee wee?

So whilst you can't publish a DVD of the stuff you listed, you can legally own images of some of it. The "dangerous pictures" laws are not well defined, and nobody, including the police and government really know what is and isn't banned. However, i'm pretty sure you're safe with handcuffs and watersports.

With BDSM it's a pretty grey area. I'd imagine things where people are cutting eachother's bits is illegal. Mainstream BDSM I'm not so sure. Nobody is.
I think you may be right that watersports isn't considered extreme porn, I'm just looking at the text now and it explicitly says:

An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal
Aneechik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 19:16
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 40,615
Apparently the Liberal Democrats debated - and passed - a motion at their 2004 conference that said they supported lowering the age at which women were allowed to view - and star in - porn films from 18 to 16.
JasonWatkins is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 19:23
MrHoppy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6,694
Apparently the Liberal Democrats debated - and passed - a motion at their 2004 conference that said they supported lowering the age at which women were allowed to view - and star in - porn films from 18 to 16.
Surely that should say "people" instead of "women". A fairly reasonable suggestion, seeing as the age of consent is 16. I'm not really sure where I stand on that. I think it's a bit nuts that an act can be legal and have images of it not. Perhaps it's a good idea to have the age for someone being employed to make "commercial" porn 18, and they could make amateur the same as the actual age of consent, but then you have the problem of defining what's amateur and what's pro. I don't really think it should be criminal to possess images of consenting adults.

It's certainly batshit insane that an erotic drawing of someone's 17 year old wife/husband is illegal.
MrHoppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 20:41
Robbie01
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wearside
Posts: 3,326
Apparently the Liberal Democrats debated - and passed - a motion at their 2004 conference that said they supported lowering the age at which women were allowed to view - and star in - porn films from 18 to 16.
Up to May 2004 it was still legal to star in a porn movie at the age of 16 at which point the age was raised to 18. The Liberal Democrats voted that year to reduce it back down to 16. The Sun mentioned the policy today in their latest attempt to put people off the LDs - using their normal approach when they get desperate, if you can't convince someone to agree with them then play the paedo card.

The policy isn't in the LDs manifesto and I doubt the LDs would now adopt it as there is a European wide agreement (as well as laws) that under 18s can't feature in porn.

There never has been a minimum age at which you can view porn so that part of what the Sun wrote is a red herring.
Robbie01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 20:47
Robbie01
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wearside
Posts: 3,326
Surely that should say "people" instead of "women". A fairly reasonable suggestion, seeing as the age of consent is 16. I'm not really sure where I stand on that. I think it's a bit nuts that an act can be legal and have images of it not. Perhaps it's a good idea to have the age for someone being employed to make "commercial" porn 18, and they could make amateur the same as the actual age of consent, but then you have the problem of defining what's amateur and what's pro. I don't really think it should be criminal to possess images of consenting adults.

It's certainly batshit insane that an erotic drawing of someone's 17 year old wife/husband is illegal.
Actually you point out one of the strange things about the current laws - you can legally take a picture of your naked wife / husband if she / he is 16 or 17 but if you draw a picture of them that looks lifelike you are creating child porn.
Robbie01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 20:50
davidmcn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 8,588
Up to May 2004 it was still legal to star in a porn movie at the age of 16 at which point the age was raised to 18. The Liberal Democrats voted that year to reduce it back down to 16. The Sun mentioned the policy today in their latest attempt to put people off the LDs
Good job the Sun never had 16 year old page 3 models, eh?
davidmcn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 20:52
DaisyBumbleroot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Derby, UK
Posts: 23,173
Up to May 2004 it was still legal to star in a porn movie at the age of 16 at which point the age was raised to 18. The Liberal Democrats voted that year to reduce it back down to 16. The Sun mentioned the policy today in their latest attempt to put people off the LDs - using their normal approach when they get desperate, if you can't convince someone to agree with them then play the paedo card.
bit hypocritical of a magazine that has 16 year olds with their baps out purely for the titilation.

(well at least used to, i dont know if their policy is over 18 year old now)
DaisyBumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 20:54
MrHoppy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6,694
Actually you point out one of the strange things about the current laws - you can legally take a picture of your naked wife / husband if she / he is 16 or 17 but if you draw a picture of them that looks lifelike you are creating child porn.
So you can take a pic of them, or yourself at 17?

If you're 25 but someone else thinks you look 17, and you draw a picture of yourself doing sex things, that's illegal too.
MrHoppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 21:04
Robbie01
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wearside
Posts: 3,326
So you can take a pic of them, or yourself at 17?

If you're 25 but someone else thinks you look 17, and you draw a picture of yourself doing sex things, that's illegal too.
If you're 25 and can prove your age then none of the legislation would apply, whether that's pictures or drawings. The various laws apply to under 18s with a get out clause that you are 16 or 17 in a relationship akin to marriage, which includes couples living together.
Robbie01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 21:08
Robbie01
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wearside
Posts: 3,326
Good job the Sun never had 16 year old page 3 models, eh?
Indeed, Sam Fox and Maria Whittaker wouldn't be allowed to pose for those pictures these days.
Robbie01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 22:50
rolypolyman1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 93
Not in the UK it isnt - especially since the "extreme pornography" legislation came into effect.

I believe porn depicting things like watersports, fisting etc are now illegal (despite being perfectly legal for consenting adults to actually perform these acts)
Fisting etc has always been covered by the OPA and still is . The BBFC interpretaton is that 4 fingers is fine but add a thumb and go beyond the knuckle and its then classed as obscene.
Watersports is illegal in that if the urine touches anyone else or occurs during sex then its obscene but if its just a girl on her own urinating then its passed at R18.

Scat and bestiality have always been illegal to supply in the UK but they now fall under the extreme porn category so are now illegal to possess so viewing online should be safe as long as you don't save any images.

Hard cocks are still banned from regular tv if they are in any material that is designed primarily to cause sexual arousal.
Baise Moi (which was cut anyway) and 9 songs and a couple of others are categorised as arty movies so they get away with it

Sh*t and pi*s porn is deffo illegal here, no?
Shit is , piss porn is ok if you like watching people do it but not if that involves them pissing on someone else

The BBFC actually issue guidance on what is legal and what is not.



Basically watersports, fisting, spanking, bondage, handcuffs, ballgags, squirting, and bestiality, are all refused classification and are therefore banned and considered extreme porn, which carries a 2 year sentence for possession.

Incidentally, no act of Parliament legalised this as stated elsewhere in this thread, it was a judicial review of existing obscenity law in 2000.
The BBFC rules are open to interpretation by everyone including the BBFC.
Bondage material of a tame nature is permitted but the heavier stuff including anything at all that looks like the actors are being forced even if its just acting is a no no

Actually you point out one of the strange things about the current laws - you can legally take a picture of your naked wife / husband if she / he is 16 or 17 but if you draw a picture of them that looks lifelike you are creating child porn.
You cannot legally have an image of a sexual nature of anyone under 18.
I would guess that if they were your spouse you would be fine but if you showed that image to someone else , technically its kiddie porn and has been since the age was increased to 18

Good job the Sun never had 16 year old page 3 models, eh?
Samantha Fox's original Sun pic would now be kiddie porn as she was 16
rolypolyman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 22:55
rolypolyman1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 93
So, does anybody know what is legal to look at online? Obviously no beastiality or anything involving children. Yuk! And quite rightly so. But what is, softcore, hardcore? And then what constitutes either catagory?
I would expect anything except kiddie porn will be fine to view but if you save images then avoid shit , animals, rape,vomit and other extreme practices including heavy bondage.

Regular porn that shows ordinary sex is fine whether its softcore or hardcore.

Hardcore has been legal in the UK for 10 years although the BBFC still routinely censor about 1/3 of all R18 movies submitted for various things.
rolypolyman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 23:25
rockerchick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leeds
Posts: 8,216
I would expect anything except kiddie porn will be fine to view but if you save images then avoid shit , animals, rape,vomit and other extreme practices including heavy bondage.

Regular porn that shows ordinary sex is fine whether its softcore or hardcore.

Hardcore has been legal in the UK for 10 years although the BBFC still routinely censor about 1/3 of all R18 movies submitted for various things.
whats heavy bondage?
rockerchick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2010, 23:45
rolypolyman1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 93
whats heavy bondage?
Anything that draws blood, leaves marks or appears to remove the participants ability to stop what is going on.

A bit of light tying up or spanking won't be a problem.

But if you check out some of the European hardcore satellite channels they show content of all kinds , some of which you would be arrested for if you had a recording of it.

Bizarre.

The channels can be legally listed in the magazine, dealers can sell cards ,viewers can watch them (although since the extreme porn law came in even viewing some of it is now illegal) and record them .

But some recordings could result in prosecution and lending ANY of them to anyone would be illegal too.

Bondage wise I once saw a Dutch film on one of the channels where a guy had his penis tip pierced by a needle and it poured with blood.
They also show some scat and very hard bondage.

One film showed a guy with 3 , yes three fists up his arse.
The medical ramifications are questionable

Record that and you'll get prison
rolypolyman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:51.