porn censorship R18s

[Deuce Bigolo]

For me it all comes down to "Pleasure versus Reproduction"

Its not about the animal being distressed but just having its normal primal instincts exploited for Human entertainment

As Woodgnome so rightly points out we have this stupid idea of seeing animal behaviour in human terms

Name one Animal that thinks about fornicating in turns of personal pleasure and not reproduction and I'll buy you a return ticket to Mars(there going cheap at present so don't take too long)

cheers
B....OZ

[gorgeous gee]

hello julia

i think your post is one of the most agreeable i've read in this forum. i agree almost entirely with your thoughts.
the bbfc should only be there to reflect the common law...end of!
i also wonder about the sheer cost of the whole thing.....a good running time can cost around a grand plus the vat !
..........its like being made to have an mot on your car for the common good and then the garage hits you for a bag of sand for the privelege !

we recently had a film backed because it showed female ejaculation....we were told in no uncertain terms that the phenomenon simply did not exist, and what we had was nothing more than the artist concerned pissing during sex...........
i'm left thinking that if this girl is cumming or pissing...does anybody really give a shit!?....who are they protecting,,,and from what!?...and why!?

with love

[woodgnome]

gorgeous gee wrote:

> hello julia
>
> i think your post is one of the most agreeable i've read in
> this forum. i agree almost entirely with your thoughts.
> the bbfc should only be there to reflect the common law...end

exactly.

the finnish model is one i'd be happy to see adopted here. films containing adult content do not require classification only registration. it is up to the producer/distributor to ensure that the content complies with finnish law. if it does not they risk fines or imprisonment.

it's all terribly sensible, which isn't always one of our strong suits when it comes to treating adults like adults.

[Easter Egg]

"we recently had a film backed because it showed female ejaculation....we were told in no uncertain terms that the phenomenon simply did not exist, and what we had was nothing more than the artist concerned pissing during sex..........."

We've had exactly the same experience. Their reality of sex is appearantly no more than some quick 5 minute shagging in missionary position with the lights out.

Regarding their job, in the case of watching porn, some of them seem very reluctant. Sometimes they take the effort to watch the entire submitted tape and give a complete cutlist. On other occasions, it seems like they instantly stopped the tape at the first doubtful occasion, requiring that single cut and a resubmission. And, as always, "further additional cuts required by the Board are always possible". This way it can take months to get approval or classification.

Besides that:
the guidelines of the BBFC are so vaguely formulated, and seem therefore even more open for inconsistent interpretation at their own will. We've been having parts of scenes rejected between specified timecodes, where other parts of the scene showing exactly the same action got approved without being rejected.
In the beginning we didn't hesitate to point at such inconsistencies, but we just ended up with more additional cuts. Since then we humbly do cut what we are told to. Frame-accurate, no more, no less.

And sometimes I just wonder what's getting around in their heads.
For instance there was a lesbo scene where some girls were playing an armed robbery. A gun was pointed at the "victim's" head. Later in that scene, one of the "robbers" cut the "victims" panties (string model) with a scissor. At the right outer side of the hip. Guess what part the bbfc wanted to be removed, due to "possible harmful action" ?

I have no problems at all with their regulations for protecting children, rules against bestiality, rape and so on. But the stupidity displayed within their arguments sometimes make me wonder whether I should laugh or cry about it.

[joe king]

I am actually surprised that Virtual Sex with Alicia Rhodes was passed at R18(without any cuts).

This had forced blowjobs, choking blowjobs. What about Alicia getting slapped?

[kym]

hi i read every one of your replys to this long argument, and i have agreed with everything you have said,

as for the whole animal thing it is wrong and unfair as to do sexual acts with them, as most of the animals they would use do have emotions, such as horse's dogs etc and so to do this with them is truly bad minded

and no i dont eat them either the only meat that goes in any part of me is that of hot sexy male human's,

when you were talking about that of a child giving consent i couldnt agree more, unless you {as who ever reads this} as a child has had to be on the resieving end of this sick behavior will never actually know how it feels trust me to any one on this board who secretly get off on this behavior can come and talk to me,

i think porn and sex is great so long as all partys are sound of mind and are enjoying the partner they are with at the time,

there are plenty of sexi men and women in the world to go around xxx

so why pee and shit on each other what happend to good hard sex where you a bit of anul a little tug on the hair lite spanking, can we have some of that back i liked doing those secnes they got me wet....

[kym]

thanx babe it felt kinda good writing that, because i cant see any of you,

yeah babee i think we should just stick to hard core messy hot porn its way hotter,

why would we as people want to shag an animal anyway? its not like we can say oh maan that horse it fit or somthing like that'' or what great tits'' it just doesnt work, i realy dont under stand who buys these anyway,

and as for the child issue i think maybe we as a nation should think before we film/speak somtimes'''