lol are you sure about that? i would have to google to see if any of that can really get you locked up if it is consensual (unless someone lies about it being consensual after the fact). if so then i think that's more of an injustice than banning it in porn. especially verbal abuse wtf.

edit - are you talking UK law or US law?

Yes, go research it. Not guaranteed conviction but you can certainly be charged, and the BDSM site I belong to has forums dedicated to legal help for that kind of stuff.

I don't know about verbal abuse, i should have deleted that part. I copied it in for the physical abuse aspect.

I mean even people in the porn industry have gotten in legal trouble for being too rough on camera and they have contracts, which to me = consent. Idk how it works in the legal system. Max Hardcore is the biggest incident that comes to mind.

Edit: US Law

but how can you be charged unless the police bust in while you're in the act? unless your partner lies about the consent part afterwards and presses charges.... which complicates things a bit.

From what I've read people had the cops called on them for being too loud, or reports are filed from people seeing bruising. This stuff can get pretty intense.

Mild impact play:


I've seen people with their entire ass/thighs black and blue. Not to mention other more sensitive areas.

i dunno how people get into that **** but it should be legal if it's consensual imo. then again i shouldn't be surprised since there are still states with sodomy laws as far as i remember.

edit - though tbh this is the reason why i wouldn't mess with that stuff even if i was into it. because the chick could always turn around and say you beat her if she got mad at you for whatever reason. same reason why i would never mess with anyone under aged even when i was barely legal myself.

Play parties/conventions are the best option for people breaking into the scene imo. This way there are witnesses in case something happens after the fact. It's definitely risky, but I don't know anyone personally who has ever got in any legal trouble over it.

And this stuff doesn't always lead to sex. Some people just enjoy being tied or spanked.

Edit: I think it basically boils down to following the same legal lines as not being allowed to consent to your own death or someone breaking your legs, taking your kidney, etc.

When will Conservative parties learn that purtism costs them votes & libertarianism does not.

U.K. Sex Workers Sitting on Each Other's Faces for Their Right to Fist

Sex workers just held a facesitting protest outside the UK parliament to fight for their right to be able to engage in certain internet porn acts which are to be banned. These include....

"no spanking, no bondage, no watersports, no fisting, no squirting, and, of course, no facesitting."

Can someone please tell me how facesitting, which is usually an act of sexual dominance by a woman promotes violence against woman or a threat to society.

Can someone please tell me why thousands of people who most likely engage in facesitting, spanking and little bit of bondage with their boyfriends and girlfriends, are now to be singled out to feel like complete perverts because some weirdo authoritarian bureaucrats has decided to tell people in the UK what is pure and normal, and what is not.

It's stuff like this that really pisses me off, I assumed the law was to ban violent role play scenes against women, not a spanking!

In Canada the Tories are attempting to drive prostitution further underground and are coming out hard against marijuana. I've never engaged in the former and rarely do the latter, but as one of those sought after independent voters who swings left & right, I'll I have to say is....NO tory vote for you! I'm going with Justin Trudeau.

"Watersports"? I know swimming pools can be dangerous sometimes, but this is getting out of hand!

Lol, knowing some of the people on MB I think I'll steer clear of this comment, its not really my thing, but hey sailors drink their own all the time.

Not sure whether this is an insult or a compliment.

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.

Sure it does. It's all to maintain our homeostasis, however we perceive it. Remember when I said that our idea of "group existence" overrides our individual existence, because we're social creatures? We perceive the survival of the group as more important than our own survival, a part of our behavior which is easily exploited, and is the root of the psychological tactics used by cult leaders and politicians to get people to do their bidding.

What about if it has nothing to do with the group? What if the painful thing you do is for the benefit of only one other person? And there's absolutely no joy in it?

The key word is "benefit", which is the same as saying moving closer to homeostasis. You're helping the group, even if it is a group of only you and one other person. When you associate deeply with other people, psychologically you consider you and them to be one and the same. Anyway, I'd love to discuss this further, but maybe this isn't the right thread for all of this?

Gotcha.

Think of the human race being like an actual, living organism, rather than a collection of entirely independent beings. Sort of like the human body. At one point, all of the cells that make up your body (muscle cells, brain cells, skin cells, etc) were probably independent organisms without any attachment to anything else. Then these disparate cells all came together for mutual benefit. And yet the human body does things that actually hurt the individual cells when it becomes necessary for the body's survival (stopping blood flow to extremities during hypothermia, consuming fat cells during starvation, etc). This doesn't benefit the individual cell that's getting screwed over, but the likelihood that this will allow later generations of the cell to survive since the human body as a whole was preserved by its sacrifice, means that in the long run, it was still beneficial to its "race".

However, this situation didn't come about to be due to any conscious decision. It was an emergent adaptation caused by the infinitely complex mechanism that governs evolution. I'm sure this is also why a parent would give up their lives to save a child, or why a soldier would jump on a grenade to save his comrades. We've probably been programmed to do so for much the same reason, and by the same evolutionary process, that caused a fat cell to be part of an organism that will destroy it when it becomes necessary for the survival of the collective.

Well, this thread about British porn has certainly become intellectual, hasn't it?

Haha.