egafd.com

A finger is okay, even two or three but becomes illegal to depict the hand being received by the vagina!

It should be legal in any liberal democracy for filmmakers to depict the real world and consenting adults playing sexual games should be uncensored.

"Fisting" is enjoyed by many women as I know by personal experience. My partner Linda Lovejoy has intense orgasms this way. These orgasmic waves of energy proving that she is experiencing ecstasy.

As a filmmaker I now want to depict a woman coming to ecstacy this way in my next film. If anyone in the BBFC is reading this they can be assured that I wont obey their authoritarian rules. I never have done.

I am writing the script now.

Mike Freeman

I see a lot of French & German movies where it seems a pretty regular occurrence. I can't say I'm over excited by seeing it .... apart from the novelty value, but I have no objections to it. Same for these German movies where they piss on each other during/after sex and spit it out of their mouths like fountains - if they want to do it, so what, I can't see what harm it does. Scat as well.

I have no real desire to watch any of the above acts, but my objection to someone saying I can't watch them is stronger ... so for that reason I'd make sure I saw enough to make up my own mind. Laws don't stop the determined fan ... they just stop the whole industry adopting the techniques as standard .... like Anal and A2M .... which seem pretty much a prerequisite to make it big these days.

The rules of censorship are most bizarre. i remember using a butt plug in a soft show. I filmed it straight on so that only the end plastic plate was in view, on the basis that the plate was stuck ON the arse hole and in fact there was no "plug" at all, therefore getting around the censorship problem.
The judgment was more or less as follows:

"In the case of jimslip VS buttplug, it is our considered opinion that although, the plug itself is not in view, the fact that the base plate is in effect suspended over the femal's anus, without the means of wires, ropes or any other supporting medium, it must be by definition "inserted". It is of no concern that the plate may in fact be "glued to the anus" as the defendant maintains, the viewer will be in no doubt that there is in fact a rubber device actually inserted therein. Therefore said viewer may become unnecessarily stimulated, having the knowledge that said butt-plug is in reality inserted and therefore creating the possibility of pleasure in the female. The possibility of arousal of the viewer is totally unacceptable and we therefore find against jim slip and sentence him to 5 years hard labour"

I have embelished it a little. But in principle fisting is banned, because some may find it distasteful and that's the long and short of it! Dumb isn't it?

i asked the bbfc about this policy a while back and posted their response here:



of course, this enquiry was made 4 1/2 years ago and one wonders how relevant that advice to the bbfc still is, given their follow-up reply.

when watching videos of this i always got a headache.

It's not currently illegal to depict fisting it's only illegal to try to "publish" depictions of it. It might seem a picky point but it makes a big difference, currently it's legal for you to own a film containing fisting but not to sell a film containing fisting.

The Government is currently consulting over making violent porn illegal to even possess and fisting might just get included in that list, because they are looking to increase the scope of whats covered and it might well be considered harmful, extreme and beyond R18 classifications.

Everyone here should be worried about these proposals and should consider responding to this consultation. Although it officialy finished on 2 December I have it on good authority that they have unofficialy extended the deadline by one week to catch last minute responses. Even a oneliner is better than nothing:

responses should be sent to:
CLPUconsultations@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

full document can be found here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ ... rn-300805/

The BBFC don't care what your thoughts are Mike just as long as it complies with what the board are allowed to show on the r18 guidelines...

I'm not sure really why fisting isnt allowed but I imagine its along the line of sexual activity being potentially harmful and lets be honest here, if not done in the right way could lead to lots of harm for the woman especially in a climate where people are trying to out do each other in intensity. Its just much easier to outlaw it as it becomes difficult to say there is one set of rules for one but not another and the act itself is considered by some to be abusive.

I've shot scenes especially g.g scene where some of the girls wrists are thinner than a dildo but like I said earlier, the board would have to consider the many differnt arguments for it and rather than waste time considering best to do away with it in general.

When it comes to governing and overseeing many aspects of the workplace (Health and Safety, Codes of Practice, Accreditation) the outlook of the government thus far is to have rigourous standards (BS, ISO), written by-the-letter procedure, which workplaces/ companies/ labs/ whatever have either to adhere to or qualify for. It's all part of having Quality Systems.

I'm not trying to sound like an authority on these matters, and I may sound naive applying such rationale to the porn industry, but let's have a go.

I don't know how strict the criteria are for passing a film through bbfc, or if they have written, clearly defined documentation available as to what can pass and what can't, but I hear flippant comments on the forum that when some film-makers submit a film, they do so on the premise that they hope it passes- if it doesn't the bbfc highlight the scenes/ reasons for it failing and the film is resubmitted. A bit like handing in the first draft of your English essay to teacher, only to get your work returned to you in red scrawl.

Therefore, with a Quality System in place, can't each studio/producer be ACCREDITED as suitable to film what they want, instead of going through the bbfc or fearing criminal reprisals? That way, the studio has proven it is working to high standards of health and safety, hygeine, codes of practice...........

........and therefore, even if depicting something that can be PERCEIVED as violent, such as S&M, heavy domination, fisting etc, a studio/ producer/director will have proved, in accordance with his accreditation and the Quality criteria he is ahering to, that everything has been performed in an ethical, non-violent and safe manner with the proviso and general disclaimer that although the acts shown are 'REAL', it is purely fro aesthetic/erotic pruposes only? A bit like don't try this a home kids....

Just a thought.

The implementation of this would be tricky, but in response to OEJ's rallying call that the government potentially over-classifying and criminalising some facets of porn is very much akin to depriving us of our freedom of expression, (crikey is it a Nanny state or a Police state they are creating, I can never tell) and thus forcibly time-warping us back to the days of soft-focus fromage, but, come on, SURELY........

.....the instatement of such a system would be better for all, instead of people, who are by all means decent and civil, getting branded and stigmatised on the paedophilic scale, for producing or owning a S&M or fisting movie??

I'm sure you lot can pick through the gaping holes in my 'hypothesis'.

Hi Nachvox,

It also places the British filmmaker at a disadvantage in the so called single market the European Union when British films acquire the reputation of being censored.

The free movement of goods and services supposed to be most important rule of this market.

Also the customer will be supplied illegally thus creating a black market. It is in the vested interest of criminals and corruption is a concomitant.

Mike Freeman

Hi Woodgnome,

In falling back on the Obscene Publications Act the BBFC are being evasive as the Video Recordings Act 1984 was introduced by the state to enforce censorship without a fair trial under the said act. The reason being so many juries were acquitting producers under the OPA.

The Crown Prosecution Service would not dare to bring a case against "fisting" where it was depicted as pleasurable to the actress because most juries would acquit thus creating a legal precedent.

The BBFC merely enforces Home Office instructions.

Mike Freeman