The BBFC thinks you're a bunch of vulnerable, soft-headed idiots...
This is a long post, but I make no apologies for it, given how angry I am about the subject.
I wrote the following comment at Amazon UK about the impending release of the film "I'm a Porn Star" on DVD. It's a light-hearted documentary about the gay porn industry and those who work within that particular sphere, featuring interviews with some of the genre's current leading lights. Whether the subject matter tickles your fancy or not is irrelevant. What has been done to the film (and others like it) in YOUR name should anger all of us.
Here's what I wrote:
Not content with scrubbing their documentary film "Sagat" clean of all hardcore imagery before submitting it to the British Board of Film Classification (without bothering to mention it on the UK packaging, of course...), TLA has capitulated further to the Board's dictates by removing 2 minutes 21 seconds worth of hardcore smut from "I'm a Porn Star", at the BBFC's request. Never mind that the uncut version will soon be available across America and vast swathes of Europe and Asia. Apparently, UK viewers MUST be protected from this 'filth', and both the BBFC and compliant distributors are going to ensure that's exactly what happens, regardless of any and all arguments to the contrary.
The BBFC's own definition of a 'sex work' (into which IAPS has been unceremoniously dumped) is a contradictory bit of double-speak which runs as follows: "Sex works are works whose PRIMARY PURPOSE [my emphasis] is sexual arousal or stimulation. Sex works containing only material which may be simulated are generally passed 18. Those containing clear images of real sex, strong fetish material, sexually explicit animated images, or other very strong sexual images will be confined to the R18 category."
So, to be clear: The BBFC defines a 'sex work' as a film whose PRIMARY purpose is the explicit depiction of sexual activity from one scene to the next, throughout the entire narrative, in a fashion designed to stimulate the viewer. Hardcore films of this nature are properly classified R18.
However, some softcore films (which might otherwise be passed at 18) add a small amount of hardcore footage into the mix, which is where the BBFC seems determined to find problems where none exist. The likes of "I'm a Porn Star" do NOT fall into the 'sex work' category, because the hardcore material takes up only a small portion of the running time and is entirely peripheral to the primary narrative (in other words, the sexual imagery does NOT constitute the PRIMARY purpose of the entire narrative, as defined by the BBFC's own policy). The likes of "9 Songs", "In the Realm of the Senses" and "The Erotic Films of Peter de Rome" - all featuring hardcore material, all passed uncut at 18 - fall squarely into this 'in-between' category. Unless the BBFC is prepared to clarify - or, in reality, redefine - their notion of a 'sex work', then can anyone guess the reason behind their treatment of IAPS and other films of this nature?
The clue is in the policy they've adopted around this subject, which can be found on their website. Under the heading: "If adults can watch what they want, what might be cut from an 18 work?", they set out their stall with breathtaking ignorance of what they're actually proposing. Amongst other things, they pledge to intervene wherever "...there are more explicit images of sexual activity which CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY CONTEXT [my emphasis again]. Such images may be appropriate in R18 works and, in 'sex works', would normally be confined to that category".
It's the bit about contextual justification that should have alarm bells ringing, because such a policy enshrines class-bias into the BBFC's own rule-book!
Don't believe me? Along with some of the films listed above, here's some other titles which include hardcore imagery which the BBFC has passed uncut with an 18 certificate on the grounds of 'contextual justification':
"Antichrist"
"Baise-moi"
"Dogtooth"
"The Idiots"
"Taxi zum Klo"
And so on and so forth. And which films have been censored to remove hardcore imagery under the same rules?:
"Barbed Wire Dolls"
"I'm a Porn Star"
"Score"
"Shatter Dead"
Note any differences between the two lists? Yep, the former is a list of 'Art-house' films aimed at specialist audiences, far removed from mainstream considerations. The latter are mass market (or grindhouse) offerings intended for plebs like you and me. Apparently, it's OK to be 'challenged' by hardcore imagery in an 18-rated film, but it's not OK to be 'entertained' by it. The lower sorts might get turned on by such things, and we can't have them getting their passions aroused. Or else they might, er... well, they might... they could very well, um... actually, it isn't at all clear what ANYONE might do after seeing such material. And while the BBFC draws a very obvious distinction between 'serious' and 'frivolous' imagery, they haven't provided a single credible justification for censoring the latter whilst indulging the former. Nor can they, when to do so would mean exposing the bigotry implicit in their own policy.
The Board's own research demonstrates that the public is happy to accept 'explicit' (ie. pornographic) imagery within the 18 category so long as the material involves consenting adults and is clearly flagged within the consumer advice. Given that the title of the film under discussion is "I'm a Porn Star" and not "I'm a Disney Star", a certain degree of expectation is fostered up-front, acting as both a 'come-on' and a warning to prospective consumers. That being the case, who on earth is being 'protected' by the deletion of this material? And from WHAT are they being protected?
The BBFC has passed all manner of pornographic imagery at 18 over the years, almost always in films which they describe as 'serious'. Though strenuously denied by the Board, decisions such as the one involving IAPS make it obvious they really DO operate along class lines, between Art for those with middle-class sensibilities and exploitation for the 'plebs'. When passing material of this kind at 18 in the past, they've always stressed that the imagery is designed to illustrate a narrative point and not merely to 'titillate'. Which leaves many of us to ponder the question: What's WRONG with a bit of titillation within the 18 category, even hardcore titillation, so long as it isn't the primary focus of the film? What do they think the 'Great Unwashed' will DO after being confronted by a bit of hardcore smut in an 18 certificate DVD? They're basically saying (not merely implying) it's OK to 'challenge' the middle class intelligentsia, but it's not OK to titillate the masses in case it turns them on!
As they said in their valiant defence of the uncut "Caligula" (famous for its non-essential hardcore, one of the reasons director Tinto Brass had his name removed from the credits): "Although there are scenes... that some people will find offensive, shocking or disgusting, the film does not contain any material that is illegal in terms of current UK law and nor does it contain any material that is likely to give rise to harm for adult audiences".
How does this very same defence NOT apply to "I'm a Porn Star" and others of its kind?!
Furthermore, the BBFC's decision to pass the aforementioned "Caligula" in 2008 set a precedent which led consumers - and the industry - to believe there would henceforth be a clear demarcation between bona fide 'sex works' and feature films which include examples of hardcore imagery, irrespective of whether the material was intended for 'serious' purposes or not. It cannot be argued that BBFC policy (in accordance with UK law) allows the extensive hardcore material in "Caligula" but not the likes of "I'm a Porn Star" since - as far as I'm aware - there is literally NO DIFFERENCE in terms of explicit visuals between the two films. And since they were perfectly happy to pass IAPS uncut at R18, it's clear there was nothing 'illegal' about the material that has been removed. It's been cut because - heaven forfend! - it's 'sexy' rather than 'crucial to the narrative'. Like I said earlier, that amounts to bigoted, class-based censorship of the most blatant and ugly kind.
By the way, the Board's offer of an uncut R18 for IAPS was clearly a non-starter, since the relegation of sales to licensed premises would have rendered the film - and others like it - commercially unviable. This is NOT a hardcore sex film by anyone's definition outside the BBFC, and therefore does not belong in that kind of venue. It is disingenuous - to say the least! - for them to suggest otherwise.
Since the hardcore imagery in "Caligula", "Nymph()maniac" and "Shortbus", etc. has not caused widespread offence or disruption, and since the public have made it eminently clear they are happy to accept material of this kind at 18, what is the problem with "I'm a Porn Star"? The answer is implicit within the BBFC's own policies. YOU need to be 'protected' because you're too stupid to understand the difference between right and wrong, fantasy and reality. Don't be fooled into thinking they're trying to protect the 'vulnerable' - that's code for 'working class'.
I wrote the following comment at Amazon UK about the impending release of the film "I'm a Porn Star" on DVD. It's a light-hearted documentary about the gay porn industry and those who work within that particular sphere, featuring interviews with some of the genre's current leading lights. Whether the subject matter tickles your fancy or not is irrelevant. What has been done to the film (and others like it) in YOUR name should anger all of us.
Here's what I wrote:
Not content with scrubbing their documentary film "Sagat" clean of all hardcore imagery before submitting it to the British Board of Film Classification (without bothering to mention it on the UK packaging, of course...), TLA has capitulated further to the Board's dictates by removing 2 minutes 21 seconds worth of hardcore smut from "I'm a Porn Star", at the BBFC's request. Never mind that the uncut version will soon be available across America and vast swathes of Europe and Asia. Apparently, UK viewers MUST be protected from this 'filth', and both the BBFC and compliant distributors are going to ensure that's exactly what happens, regardless of any and all arguments to the contrary.
The BBFC's own definition of a 'sex work' (into which IAPS has been unceremoniously dumped) is a contradictory bit of double-speak which runs as follows: "Sex works are works whose PRIMARY PURPOSE [my emphasis] is sexual arousal or stimulation. Sex works containing only material which may be simulated are generally passed 18. Those containing clear images of real sex, strong fetish material, sexually explicit animated images, or other very strong sexual images will be confined to the R18 category."
So, to be clear: The BBFC defines a 'sex work' as a film whose PRIMARY purpose is the explicit depiction of sexual activity from one scene to the next, throughout the entire narrative, in a fashion designed to stimulate the viewer. Hardcore films of this nature are properly classified R18.
However, some softcore films (which might otherwise be passed at 18) add a small amount of hardcore footage into the mix, which is where the BBFC seems determined to find problems where none exist. The likes of "I'm a Porn Star" do NOT fall into the 'sex work' category, because the hardcore material takes up only a small portion of the running time and is entirely peripheral to the primary narrative (in other words, the sexual imagery does NOT constitute the PRIMARY purpose of the entire narrative, as defined by the BBFC's own policy). The likes of "9 Songs", "In the Realm of the Senses" and "The Erotic Films of Peter de Rome" - all featuring hardcore material, all passed uncut at 18 - fall squarely into this 'in-between' category. Unless the BBFC is prepared to clarify - or, in reality, redefine - their notion of a 'sex work', then can anyone guess the reason behind their treatment of IAPS and other films of this nature?
The clue is in the policy they've adopted around this subject, which can be found on their website. Under the heading: "If adults can watch what they want, what might be cut from an 18 work?", they set out their stall with breathtaking ignorance of what they're actually proposing. Amongst other things, they pledge to intervene wherever "...there are more explicit images of sexual activity which CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY CONTEXT [my emphasis again]. Such images may be appropriate in R18 works and, in 'sex works', would normally be confined to that category".
It's the bit about contextual justification that should have alarm bells ringing, because such a policy enshrines class-bias into the BBFC's own rule-book!
Don't believe me? Along with some of the films listed above, here's some other titles which include hardcore imagery which the BBFC has passed uncut with an 18 certificate on the grounds of 'contextual justification':
"Antichrist"
"Baise-moi"
"Dogtooth"
"The Idiots"
"Taxi zum Klo"
And so on and so forth. And which films have been censored to remove hardcore imagery under the same rules?:
"Barbed Wire Dolls"
"I'm a Porn Star"
"Score"
"Shatter Dead"
Note any differences between the two lists? Yep, the former is a list of 'Art-house' films aimed at specialist audiences, far removed from mainstream considerations. The latter are mass market (or grindhouse) offerings intended for plebs like you and me. Apparently, it's OK to be 'challenged' by hardcore imagery in an 18-rated film, but it's not OK to be 'entertained' by it. The lower sorts might get turned on by such things, and we can't have them getting their passions aroused. Or else they might, er... well, they might... they could very well, um... actually, it isn't at all clear what ANYONE might do after seeing such material. And while the BBFC draws a very obvious distinction between 'serious' and 'frivolous' imagery, they haven't provided a single credible justification for censoring the latter whilst indulging the former. Nor can they, when to do so would mean exposing the bigotry implicit in their own policy.
The Board's own research demonstrates that the public is happy to accept 'explicit' (ie. pornographic) imagery within the 18 category so long as the material involves consenting adults and is clearly flagged within the consumer advice. Given that the title of the film under discussion is "I'm a Porn Star" and not "I'm a Disney Star", a certain degree of expectation is fostered up-front, acting as both a 'come-on' and a warning to prospective consumers. That being the case, who on earth is being 'protected' by the deletion of this material? And from WHAT are they being protected?
The BBFC has passed all manner of pornographic imagery at 18 over the years, almost always in films which they describe as 'serious'. Though strenuously denied by the Board, decisions such as the one involving IAPS make it obvious they really DO operate along class lines, between Art for those with middle-class sensibilities and exploitation for the 'plebs'. When passing material of this kind at 18 in the past, they've always stressed that the imagery is designed to illustrate a narrative point and not merely to 'titillate'. Which leaves many of us to ponder the question: What's WRONG with a bit of titillation within the 18 category, even hardcore titillation, so long as it isn't the primary focus of the film? What do they think the 'Great Unwashed' will DO after being confronted by a bit of hardcore smut in an 18 certificate DVD? They're basically saying (not merely implying) it's OK to 'challenge' the middle class intelligentsia, but it's not OK to titillate the masses in case it turns them on!
As they said in their valiant defence of the uncut "Caligula" (famous for its non-essential hardcore, one of the reasons director Tinto Brass had his name removed from the credits): "Although there are scenes... that some people will find offensive, shocking or disgusting, the film does not contain any material that is illegal in terms of current UK law and nor does it contain any material that is likely to give rise to harm for adult audiences".
How does this very same defence NOT apply to "I'm a Porn Star" and others of its kind?!
Furthermore, the BBFC's decision to pass the aforementioned "Caligula" in 2008 set a precedent which led consumers - and the industry - to believe there would henceforth be a clear demarcation between bona fide 'sex works' and feature films which include examples of hardcore imagery, irrespective of whether the material was intended for 'serious' purposes or not. It cannot be argued that BBFC policy (in accordance with UK law) allows the extensive hardcore material in "Caligula" but not the likes of "I'm a Porn Star" since - as far as I'm aware - there is literally NO DIFFERENCE in terms of explicit visuals between the two films. And since they were perfectly happy to pass IAPS uncut at R18, it's clear there was nothing 'illegal' about the material that has been removed. It's been cut because - heaven forfend! - it's 'sexy' rather than 'crucial to the narrative'. Like I said earlier, that amounts to bigoted, class-based censorship of the most blatant and ugly kind.
By the way, the Board's offer of an uncut R18 for IAPS was clearly a non-starter, since the relegation of sales to licensed premises would have rendered the film - and others like it - commercially unviable. This is NOT a hardcore sex film by anyone's definition outside the BBFC, and therefore does not belong in that kind of venue. It is disingenuous - to say the least! - for them to suggest otherwise.
Since the hardcore imagery in "Caligula", "Nymph()maniac" and "Shortbus", etc. has not caused widespread offence or disruption, and since the public have made it eminently clear they are happy to accept material of this kind at 18, what is the problem with "I'm a Porn Star"? The answer is implicit within the BBFC's own policies. YOU need to be 'protected' because you're too stupid to understand the difference between right and wrong, fantasy and reality. Don't be fooled into thinking they're trying to protect the 'vulnerable' - that's code for 'working class'.
0
Comments
Also, although the 18-rating details state 'real sex works' are generally put into R-18, they don't say that other strong real sex related content won't also be put into R-18.
There must have been something about the content that was too much. Perhaps you should contact them for a proper breakdown of the decision.
Vast swathes of Asia? Unless you're talking piracy, I seriously - seriously - doubt that, Libretio.
I'll just get the uncut version from the usual place in a few months time.
That doesn't square with "Caligula" and "Shortbus" and various other films which contain extensive hardcore imagery, front and centre. Granted, the imagery is couched within much larger narratives, but if you haven't seen either film and think they only feature a few brief snippets of rudery, you'll be quite gobsmacked by what's on offer!
The only 'context' is whether the material is 'sexy' or 'justified by narrative'. This assumes a difference between audiences for different types of film, which is the basis of my anger: The assumption is that working class audiences (the masses) need to be protected because they're somehow more 'vulnerable' than their middle-class counterparts who are 'inured' to this kind of thing. That's a load of bigoted crap, to be honest, and that's why I'm so angry about this particular decision.
That's not at all clear. What IS clear is that they describe 'sex works' as films whose PRIMARY purpose is sexual stimulation. There's no ambiguity there. "I'm a Porn Star" does not fall into that category (nor does "Score" or "Barbed Wire Dolls", etc.). If I can see a comparatively small amount of penetration and ejaculation in an 'intellectual' film, why can't I see the same in an entertainment film? The answer is plainly obvious, no matter how much the BBFC attempts to claim otherwise.
I did contact them. At first, I was given the brush-off and directed to various pages on their website which explained their policy, along with some case histories on 'contentious' films. None of these addressed the problem I had with this decision, and I was already fully aware of the policies. In fact, I couldn't have composed my original e-mail to them without knowing their policies in advance.
They responded by apologising for appearing to brush me off, and attempted to claim there was no difference in their approach to specialist and mass-market movies, but their own policy gives lie to that assertion. They also said I was entitled to my opinion. I wrote back and explained that the difference between my opinion and theirs is that the BBFC has the power to act on their opinion. People like me can only shout from the sidelines.
You're right, actually. Got carried away in the moment (that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!). But since America and Europe constitute vast swathes of the entire planet, the point I was making remains valid, I hope.
The BBFC passed the film with no cuts. End of story tbh.
It was just the distributor wanted to make more money at a lower rating and liaised with BBFC how to do that. Happens all the time. All they can do is rate the content they're given.
It has to be said though, the detailed corkscrew stabbing sounds pretty shocking. When you think of all the brutal gore that gets into 15's these days, it must have been bad.
Gore and injury detail isn't really a problem at a 15 these days, unless it's very extreme. The primary issue is the level of sadism, stabbing somebody with a corkscrew is probably highly sadistic, and that's probably what pushed it to an 18, rather than graphic imagery.
No argument there. It would have consigned the film - a commercial bit of fluff, nothing more - into an arena where it CLEARLY doesn't belong. That said, it's almost certain there'll be nothing on the UK packaging to suggest the film has been censored, which is to collude in a very dubious practice indeed. 'Fraud' might be too strong of a word (and not appropriate in the legal sense), but very, very dubious.
There we'll have to disagree (you knew that was coming, didn't you?!
Is it the BBFC's fault the R18 certificate is so restricted? or is it the government's?
In a drama some explicit content has been passed if it is in context with the dramatic narrative. I'm not sure if the same applies to a documentary, especially a documentary called I'm a Porn Star featuring interviews with porn stars and clips of hardcore porn. I suspect the BBFC sees this as just porn really.
The nature of the film doesn't really make any difference. What we're talking about are images of penetration and - almost certainly - ejaculation, which is freely available in various 'intellectual' films with an 18 certificate. Since the BBFC was perfectly happy to pass IAPS at R18, it's clear there wasn't much more to the imagery in question than those particular elements.
As the Board's own policy suggests, 'porn' is about nothing more than shagging from one scene to the next, designed to get you off. Regardless of the subject matter, IAPS doesn't live up to that billing (the IMDb lists a running time of 81 minutes, from the which the BBFC has removed just over 2 minutes - hardly a bonk-a-thon!
I'm reminded of the man who went to hell and was shown a room of people stood neck deep in shit, then shown a room of people chest deep in shit drinking tea and asked by the devil which room he preferred to spend eternity in the man chose the room where they were drinking tea - then the devil says alright tea break's over, back on your hands and knees.
It's Justice.
They haven't moved on from the Lady Chatterley trial: "Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?"
Not sure how many BBFC examiners come from the serving classes.
Both.
If you're moved to investigate this subject further (and I'd urge anyone to do so), you can do no better than read Julian Petley's excellent book "Film and Video Censorship in Modern Britain", which not only covers the genesis and development of the R18 certificate, but reveals the entire British film/video censorship operation as the gigantic sham that it is.
The BBFC has certainly been guilty of some egregious overreactions in the past, e.g. not issuing a home video certificate for The Exorcist until they finally saw sense years after the "video nasty" scandal (which actually ended up with some videos being reduced to a 15 certificate once finally passed, such was the overreaction at the time).
The issue of sexual content has always been a problem, though, largely because of the very subjective nature of what is deemed acceptable or appropriate content. The old defence that imagery was banned if it had a tendency to "corrupt or deprave" went out the window years ago fortunately. But it was replaced by issues of consent, violence and, most trickily, context.
Still playing devil's advocate here, I suspect that the BBFC in this instance couldn't justify hardcore sequences appropriately in context, although it does seem odd in a video about pornography. I suppose their question would have been: is it necessary to show explicit scenes of sex in a documentary about porn? Does it make any difference to the narrative if those scenes are absent or censored? Is there contextual justification for their inclusion?
The notion of 'context' gives rise to the very problems I've outlined, since it presupposes that imagery in one type of film is OK for the intended audience (ie. middle-class intellectuals), but not OK for another (ie. plebs). What is it about the working class that means they cannot be 'allowed' to see this imagery within entertainment films rated 18? What difference does it make whether the imagery is 'serious' or just plain 'sexy'? Why does there need to be 'contextual justification' at all?
Even if the material is completely gratuitous and serves absolutely no narrative purpose whatsoever, other than to add a bit of spice to an otherwise straightforward narrative, that is not - in itself - a reason for censorship.
If it's OK for Art-house movies, why not exploitation? What does the BBFC think we're going to DO when confronted by this kind of imagery? In this instance, 'contextual justification' means just about anything the BBFC wants it to mean, and it allows them to distinguish between two distinct types of audience without having to answer the basic questions which arise from such a policy: Why are they operating a two-tier system for certain types of imagery? And what are the differences between certain 'types' of people which allows them to use 'context' as an excuse for their decisions in this area? Ask them directly and watch them wriggle whilst studiously avoiding a direct response, for no other reason than the real answer is blatantly obvious...
If there's one genre above all others that's "intellectual", it's surely the documentary. When did you last see a cinema full of working-class people watching a non-fiction feature?
Conversely, why would fiction be purely the preserve of the middle-class intellectual? And why would you assume that there are no working-class intellectuals?
You make some interesting points about what is and isn't permitted by the BBFC, but by trying to make this about class you demolish your own argument.
• 1900 (Novecento, 1976)
• Caligula (1979)
• Exposed (2013)
• Hollywood, je t'aime (2009)
• House of Boys (2011)
• The Hunt (Jagten, 2012)
• Inside Deep Throat (2005)
• Justine's Hot Nights (Les nuits chaudes de Justine, 1976)
• Language of Love (Kärlekens språk, 1969)
• More About the Language of Love (Mera ur kärlekens språk, 1970)
• Sensation (2010)
• Shortbus (2006)
(The Melon Farmers list also included "Spetters", which I opted not to include since the film's up-front depiction of sexuality doesn't extend to hardcore, except for one tiny bit of business which is visually unclear and was probably faked anyway).
Of these 12 titles, only two of them feature extensive, up-front hardcore visuals ("Caligula" and "Shortbus"). The rest of them contain only the most fleeting references, often of the blink-and-you'll-miss-it variety (I'm unfamiliar with the contents of the two Language of Love films, so if anyone can confirm how much smut we're 'allowed' to see in them, I'd be much obliged). It's true that many of the 'intellectual' films on the list also contain similarly brief imagery, but as this unscientific listing attempts to demonstrate, the discrepancy between the two 'types' of film (and corresponding 'types' of audience) cannot be ignored.
That depends on the subject. For instance, "Inside Deep Throat" is going to attract an entirely different audience than "Shoah". But neither film 'excludes' certain people. There's always going to be a degree of cross-over from one to the other. But the primary audience - real or perceived - for something like "Grey Gardens" is going to be very specialised, whereas "Fahrenheit 9/11" or "An Inconvenient Truth" is inherently more populist.
I don't assume anything of the kind. Working class people are every bit as diverse as you suggest, but the BBFC's unspoken rubric (the more popular the subject, the wider the audience, and therefore the greater 'need' for censorship) treats them all as potentially 'vulnerable', whereas middle-class audiences are routinely given the benefit of the doubt. As with documentaries, 'intellectual' narrative features will attract a range of viewers, but the primary audience for "Taxidermia" is quite different from the audience for "Barbed Wire Dolls". If the BBFC's policy on this issue ISN'T shaped by class-bias, I'd like to know the reason for it, since no other explanation fits the bill.
Explain how.
Not at all, since this doesn't explain why the extensive hardcore in "Caligula", "In the Realm of the Senses" and others is OK, but not the likes of "Score" or "I'm a Porn Star". The material in question may last only a couple of seconds ("The Hunt"), or it may last about 15 minutes ("Caligula"). My point is: Why does it have to be censored at all? Why is it OK in one context but not another?
Personally, I think the BBFC is one of Britain's best institutions and an shame that the internet forced it to 'liberalize' from the mid 90s onwards.
Don't you think going on sites like Melon Farmers is just an waste of your time? I would be embarrassed!
They are long gone. Actually that is a good thing too. Wanking is not suitable for public doings.