egafd.com

Mr Mark wrote:

> So how come watersports pass and male ejaculation?!?! - fucked
> up world we live in...
>



Watersports don't pass do they?

Yes, providing it's not onto somebody.

>What should happen is that the BBFC should be 'classifiers' and not 'censors'. >The classification should have been given with the advice that there was >potential content for an OPA prosecution. The producer would then decide if it >should be cut or not.

I was under the impression that this is what does happen.
I might be wrong, but as far as I know - the BBFC only advise on what needs to be cut.
Of course, as they can't give an R18 to any content covered by the OPA choosing NOT to cut the bits they suggest would mean your film went unclassified [and could not be legally sold - is this right?]

But I think the decision to cut does actually lie with the producers.
Does anyone know if this is the case?

The BBFC will not classify material which it believes to be in breach of the criminal law note "believes". Whether or not the content breaches law is irrelavent if they "believe", they believe that they don't have to provide burden of proof based evidence. They were asked to by the High Court in 2000 and they didn't have any which is why we now have R18. They were surpressing hardcore porn illegaly proir to this (not entirely some was allowed prior to this) because they believed in "harm" to the viewer.

Now 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 cannot be given a classification.

Note "current interpretation"

Now this is the problem, the OPA does not set case law precedent so the BBFC cannot act to say what is legal or illegal only what is probable for prosecution given the current understanding of the OPA, one jury might find pissing acceptable but it does not mean that pissing is acceptable, it's only acceptable for that one DVD hence they cannot censor only advise. They are not a law enforcement body and thus cannot act as one and yet they act as a censor not as a classifier.

However the VRA gives them the balls act as a censor.

In making decisions under the VRA, the BBFC is required to consider 'whether or not video works are suitable for classification certificate to be issued to them, having special regard to the likelihood of video works [...] being viewed in the home' and to consider whether a video was 'not suitable for viewing by persons who have not attained a particular age' or whether 'no video recording containing that work is to be supplied other than in a licensed sex shop'.

Which I think you'll agree is an ambiguous statement and gives license for the BBFC to act however it feels. In other words if you want to sell your DVD you must get classification and you must do what we tell you to do.

Do they not allow watersports? Seen a few sites that have that which use CCBill?

CCBill are fine with squirting sites ... for now at least. They can always change their attitude, of course, but I don't see why they would.

The following are all CCBill processed squirting sites:

Femflood
She Can Squirt
Squirting Movies
She Can Squirt
Female Orgasm World
Squirters.tv
Orgasm Clips
British Orgasms
Squirting Carly
The Female Orgasm
Squirters Paradies

I expect there's plenty more on ccbill's books than that.

As an avid watersporter, and F ejaculator, I think it's all a little rediculous. F egaculation should be allowed, just like men, and even if it is classed as 'pee' in the eyes of some people, so what?
I can understand if the BBFC thought 'peeing', or ejsculation was done in a derogatory way, I could understand the discrimination... but to ban it all seems really harsh!

If you don't mind me asking Isabel, is female ejacualtion something you achieve every time you have sex? or is it just occasionally?