Cant' sleep, and the more I think about the hypocrisy of this bill, the more it irritates me. If you are going to ban certain sex acts on the internet than it should be because it either 1) promotes violence against women or 2) poses a significant health risk

Spanking = no

Bondage = no (but extreme bondage is often associated with captivity so this is what they're going for) The problem is that virtually every couple on the planet has played around with light bondage fun, and a large group probably with handcuffs

Watrersports = no. Peeing on someone or vice versa is an act of degradation, there is no direct violence involved, and it doesn't pose a health risk (You would have to argue the slippery slope fallacy that watersports is a gateway to scat like marijuana is to heroin)

Fisting = yes (perhaps) This is the one case were the sexual act itself could be perceived as a violent act against a woman

Squirting = F)ck no! So let me get this straight, the British government is telling women who squirt when they c)um, that their natural bodily instinct is a deviant perversion they should be ashamed of???

Facesitting = no (If anything this sexually empowers a woman)

So here is the hypocrisy

What act is not listed on here that is more violent to women, and poses a greater health risk in terms of the risk of infection? anal sex!

Why? Because David Cameron has been courting the Gay and lesbian community by enacting same sex marriage into law, and it would be politically incorrect if not & outright political suicide to ban anal sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gay marriage and letting guys f)ck each other in the a$$ until the cows come home, but if your going to ban the above acts, than you need to ban anal sex to.

...and that is why this law is bull$hit! bull$hit! bull$hit!

Porn is bad for you, and yet this bill is hypocritical, since "everybody look at porn and spank da monkey at some time in their life"!

I'm not actually a consumer of porn, though I watch it now and then, and being a male I totally forgot about the issue of the objectification of women damn, damn, damn! how f)n stupidly male centered of me, maybe I should erase my comments with the edit button, though dominatrix's often argue their is female empowering porn & art as well.

I'm simply coming from the perspective of a sexual libertarian, in that the government has no place in your bedroom, and as long as its not promoting harm against another, no place in what you watch as well.

Porn is straight-up bad for you in every way--especially the effect internet porn has on your brain (from a scientific perspective, not a moral one). The problem is that everyone is full of shit and can't really say anything to stop it.

I'm pretty sure the internet itself is more damaging to our attention spans than any specific content therein could ever be.

Who ****ing cares? I'd rather screw my brain up with porn than do 99% of the things on Earth that are beneficial to me.

It's a bit of both.

Like I said. Who cares? I've heard there are studies which actually show that violent video games can actually be somewhat desensitizing, and yet kids these days are no more pro-war than they were before Call of Duty. I also imagine women are probably doing still better than they were before internet porn. So long as the effects of video games and internet porn aren't causing any serious harm to the moral fabric of society, I'm willing to let a little entropy seep in just so the world doesn't become a place where I have to play Monopoly and jerk off to the Sears catalog.

Technically, you could argue that all human behavior is constructed around the idea of "porn", or gratification. Everything we do is simply to maintain our homeostasis. We all "get off" on doing things that benefit us, as our brain releases feel-good neuro-chemical signals to reward us. Taking up a hobby in carpentry is just as "damaging" to your brain and behavior as watching literal pornography.

Actually it's a fascinating subject, as human behavior is so varied. If our behavior is patterned around attaining homeostasis, then why do people commit suicide? Why do some people shame themselves? How could such actions possibly gratify us? It gets into complex issues, like the level of human intelligence and our existence as social creatures creating a kind of "group-existence" that overrides individual existence. Also, there's the idea that our high levels of intelligence are able to alter the basic idea of what "survival" is, on a level where we consider normally detrimental behavior to be beneficial...

Oh wow. Did I just write all of that? Huh. Well anyway, to sum it all up, life is a wank. Enjoy it.

Your theory doesn't support all the things people do, out of duty or sacrificial love, that aren't enjoyable.