egafd.com

I notice that the Daily mail has now launched a concerted and venomous attack on internet porn and has now got the Labour Party on its, "Opt in" bandwagon.



Personally, I have no problem with "Opt in", because its just rids us of millions of freebie hunters, 14 year old boys and general bandwidth wasters. However my question to the panel is this: Doesn't it seem a bit coincindental that this hysterical anti-porn campaign has been re-resurrected so soon after our Mr Bendover won the right to demand names and addresses of people who own routers that had been used by persons unknown to download/upload porn?

I have always been of the opinion that it is wise to stay under the radar in the UK and maybe this well publicised case has now just stoked a huge hornet's nest of anti-porn hysteria and in effect will destroy anyone's hopes of starting out as a porn producer in the UK.

"Opt in" doesn't effect successful, established websites like jimslip.com, but it will effect fledgling new websites that are already struggling to stay afloat or simply starting out.

Any predictions for the state of UK porn in 3 years time?

Will it be:

Dead and buried and pushing up the Daisies?
Just dead?
Nearly dead but just hanging on for dear life?
Booming like never before? !wink!

The censors are never very far under the surface in the UK. And UK governments seem to have a habit of cultivating editors and owners of media outlets.

I suspect that in latter years, the noises we have heard about protecting children are just the initial moves in conditioning the public to more internet censorship. They start off with something that's plausible, then progress in stages to ever more stringent measures.

I also wonder if there is any significance in the recent regulations which require ISPs to keep records of their subscribers' activities and the fact that opting in to porn will place the subscriber's 'opt-in' on record.

What about those who are on record as having opted in, and then are on record as habitually visiting 'unhealthy' sites, bondage, BDSM and Public Disgrace, for instance?

I notice that many of the Mail readers place the 'blame' for the "harm that porn does", on to men. However, I read an article somewhere recently that many women are becoming 'addicted' to porn, and 'addicted' is their word not mine.

I actually prefer amateur porn to mainstream stuff now. With the advances in camera technology amateur pics and self-shot stuff can look just as good as professional.

The only kind of mainstream I DO like now is where we get to know the actress/model and she speaks before and after. Seeing a mute girl get fucked is...kinda boring.

The amateurs are there because they love it and are not just motivated by money.

The corrupt power nexus between politicians and the press is being laid bare every day at the Leveson Inquiry, but they just can't help themselves can they? The fact that the Daily Mail's website seems to specialise in photos of starlets in bikinis and lingerie can't be relevant to this can it? I wonder what Dirty Des at the Express thinks of all this?

Mary fucking Whitehouse didn't actually achieve much did she?
I think the fuss will die down. Too many people with a vote use the stuff and are happy with the availlabilty of hardcore in UK via the web.
If our MP got up on his hind legs and started to pontificate about it I think he would be quickly brought back down to earth by his constituents writing to him. He has already changed from being a Europhile to a Euro sceptic. Lots of contituents writing and telling him where their vote will go at the next general election was a sobering episode for him, and he has been reminded more than once that he aint the best MP ever to represent Hove.

I agree with you about amateur porn, Gator, although it can get very frustrating when the camerawork is dreadful. Plastic professional porn just bores me to death.

I have no idea why more producers don't conduct interviews with the models in pro porn. Then again, I've got no idea why none of them bother to tell the studs to make the girls cum (if said girls are sufficiently turned on). Seems to me an easy, money-making extra to throw in, whatever the niche; and perhaps even a necessity against the levels of erotic reality you often find in amateur stuff.

I did interviews with the women I shot in my last series for TVX called Milf Castings, all of them fresh to the industry so it'd be pushing it a bit to call them pros. They're up on my AdultWork page, MummyCums. Then I got them to strip and wank and they all came. I timed it so that the studs arrived around the same time that we finished the solo scene, by which time the girls were well revved up and itching for a fuck. It's not rocket science and I haven't got the slightest concern detailing my approach here. No other producers will have the slightest interest in copying it.

If 'Mumsnet' don't approve then that's the end of it.

When isn't the Daily Mail hysterical about something?

Sam Slater makes a valid point. Equally, so does Jim Slip, since you
folks living in Britain must try and understand how the Establishment
that rules the UK actually works; lately porn has been seen as a minor
issue...unless it rears its dirty little head and tries to get noticed. As Jim
Slip says, better for porn producers in UK to toddle along with heads
down than swank around saying "I am legit and am going to make a
stink in the High Court". The Establishment does not like that, oh no !
Of course, I have been a lone voice bleating in the wilderness for years
that sooner or later the Establishment will come after you guys....I just
wait for the day I can say "I told you so!" Sorry, lads, it will come if some
shape or form you least expect but come it will !

There are parallels here with the Video Nasties hysteria of the early 1980s, in which the Mail also took a leading role. They've made a big thing about a teenager supposedly traumatised by Porn and I recall Mary Whitehouse using the same tactic back then. No surprise to see Labour jumping on the bandwagon, they're for the nanny state and proud of it, something the Mail's pilloried them for the years. On every subject except this one of course.

At the risk of sounding thick though, how would an opt-in system actually work effectively?