Life
Life

Porn law fury: How ‘old men who’ve never made a woman come’ decide how YOU get off

The Government’s controversial new porn laws mean ‘a bunch of old dudes who’ve never made a woman ejaculate’ are now deciding what porn you can and can’t watch, according to an adult entertainment mogul.

Warning: graphic images and content below.

You are unlikely to have given any more than a split-second’s attention to fact that the amendments to the 2003 Communications Act had passed into UK law.

What might have sparked your interest were the details of the amendments: they banned a whole number of acts in pornography including female ejaculation or squirting, strangulation, spanking and caning, facesitting, and ‘water sports’.

They’re censoring porn.

On Friday, hundreds of people will descend on Westminster to simulate sex for a mass ’facesitting’ protest against what they see as a draconian intervention and an infringement on their human rights.

MM spoke to the scientists, the lawyers, and those making, starring in and watching the porn to get to the bottom of this most personal of issues.

Dr Jennifer Cole, a senior lecturer in psychology at Manchester Metropolitan University, believes that science is still catching up with the modern world.

However she doesn’t believe that watching a film of someone being strangled, caned or violated in some other way, means that the viewer will then potentially seek to act it out without someone’s consent.

“We are a bit in the dark. Psychology is still getting to grips with what people do in reaction to consuming media,” she said.

“In my own research into video games, people say they do feel more violent having played violent video games, but it’s very difficult to say whether they would ever go out and act on those; it’s very different doing it from just pressing a button.”

But will the pornography people watch make them more likely to go out and actually commit a crime?

“Seeing a rape scene or violence isn’t necessarily going to make you go out and commit an act of violence. What’s more important is the stories that we are telling.

“Lots of things can happen sexually between adults, which would be fine as they are clearly consenting, but because rape is by definition non-consensual, the story you’re being told is problematic from the beginning.”

Myles Jackman is the UK’s leading obscenity lawyer, having fought numerous high-profile cases challenging the laws on sexual liberties in the UK.

“This impinges on the producer’s freedom of expression, and then by default it impinges on the consumer,” Myles told MM.

“Even if a person is not directly affected by the issues of the consumption of pornography, the implications for free speech and freedom of expression in broader terms are very concerning.”

The human rights affected are not the only ethical issues which the changes throw up. The regulations appear to be cementing or even encouraging the very worst paradigms of chauvinistic, degrading pornography.

While female ejaculation is banned on camera, especially if someone is consuming the liquid, it has nothing of the same restrictions on male ejaculation.

Are these seemingly backwards laws the banner of a moral crusade on the British adult film industry and public?

Dr Cole, who also studies gender representation and attitudes towards women, certainly thinks so.

“It’s not very progressive. It’s a real-life manifestation of sexism,” she said.

“Sometimes it seems as if sexism in the media is getting worse rather than getting better, so these sorts of things aren’t very surprising unfortunately, so this is another step backwards.”

Pandora Blake, a professional producer and performer of spanking videos, the most popular fetish of those banned, thinks it might be more than simply sexism.

“The argument that the government gives for the female ejaculation rule is that it is indistinguishable from urine, which suggests to me that they are a bunch of old dudes who have never made a woman ejaculate,” she told MM.

“If you’ve experienced this, you know that it’s not urine! I just don’t know if they know about sex, or if they have had much sex.”

Pandora argues that the message the Government have effectively sent to UK porn producers and vendors is ‘let him come in her mouth, choke her with his dick, but for goodness’ sake don’t subject him to similar treatment’.

Pandora’s self-built website is one of a large number of cottage industries who are largely responsible for the niche pornography produced in the UK and who will be hurt the most by wide-spread censorship.

Pandora told MM: “I feel really exposed.  However when the news broke publicly stated that I wouldn’t censor myself, and I’m relieved to see that I’m not the only one.

“This law doesn’t hurt the big studios who produce mass-appeal pornography, it’s the cottage industries like me who produce niche content.”

Pandora employs a couple of part-time staff, but that makes her something of a whale in this ocean of smaller fish.

“Most people who are now doing ‘illegal’ things are one-man or one-woman set-ups, or a couple, working from home, recording their fun, sharing it and making a few quid,” she added.

“They are creating fetish, niche content, whether it’s feet or sneezing – it’s not all caning like me – but there are plenty who will be severely affected.”

Three years ago, Australia’s government introduced laws banning certain types of pornography, and UK producers have already been in regular communication with their counterparts Down Under to discuss how to work around the new regulations.

While they are already ensconced in law, Pandora and others like her are confident that the industry will not accept them lying down.

“I’m hoping we might strength in numbers, and that if multiple producers refuse to comply we might be able to get these regulations changed,” Pandora added.

“It is a big gamble though, and we stand to fail and be ruined. It’s terrifying, I’ve been crying about it.”

It’s more than just a matter of livelihood though. Pandora can see that, beyond her own business being in jeopardy, censoring pornography production setting a dangerous precedent.

“It’s a total freedom of expression issue,” Pandora said.

“There’s a huge number of people who express themselves in this way and a few who make pocket money from it.”

If their websites are blocked, the businesses of those producers who are not propped up by multi-national studios will be instantly destroyed.

Court orders requiring internet service providers to block torrent websites which breach copyright already have already been issued on a grand scale in the UK.

“The next stage is the risk of ‘foreign’ websites having to comply with UK regulation or be blocked,” lawyer Myles added.

“The idea that the internet can be selectively blocked, and that only approved content be accessed, is very concerning.

“The issue of course is that while a consumer can simply move and access a website that is hosted in the Netherlands or Denmark or wherever, the one-man fetish porn producers are going to be disproportionately affected, which seems very unfair on them.”

Manchester writer Charlie Hooson-Sykes, who runs ginfuelledbluestocking.co.uk, vented her fury to MM.

“I’m pretty disappointed,” said the blogger, who is openly bisexual and has written widely about sexuality.

“Rape fantasies for men and women are not unusual, they are very common, but what the fantasy involves more is a submission of will to someone who is trusted implicitly.

“It is completely different from real rape which is a vicious attack and involves power, not sexual pleasure.

“Most of the elements banned are common in BDSM relationships. However, BDSM is all about consent.

“What happens between consenting adults, whatever their preference, kink or vice, so long as it is consenting and it’s not breaking a law, or involving those who cannot give their consent, then I do not see what it is to do with anyone else.”

Producer Pandora shares Charlie’s view that while consent is sacrosanct, anything beyond that prevents people from expressing themselves.

“If you have to draw a line, then it should be consent and that’s not where the law draws the line,” Pandora said.

“I would be perfectly happy to see an explicit blanket ban on pornography that depicts actual, real non-consensual activity.

“Anything which is acting regardless of the content should be legal. I personally find scat quite disgusting, but as long as everyone is consenting and it’s properly marked and pay-walled, I don’t have a problem with people making scat videos.

“No-one has ever died from facesitting or trampling.”

Main image courtesy of Gavin Schaefer, with thanks.

Related Articles

Tags

Archives Categories