egafd.com

'I wouldnt be too quick to send those fisting and pissing extravaganzas to the BBFC just yet.'

I find it amazing how many pornographers are risk averse.

Apropos of nothing - I found this great link dealing-with-the-press-safety-first - you might like it. She was also talking about this case somewhere.

joe king wrote:

> 'The trial was heard before the Southwark Crown Court. The
> films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five
> fingers of the fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia
> (in this case men urinating in their clothes, onto each others'
> bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in this case hard whipping,
> the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and electrical
> torture). Also there was an example of a staged non consensual
> scene.'
>
Here we have the Fascism of Political Correctness rearing its ugly head head yet again. As a straight man making hetero porn, if I had made any of the elements as described in a hetero film, I would almost certainly been found guilty. Feminists would have been outside screaming that my films degrade and brutalise women for the pleasure of men and fhe judge would have sent me down.

However, gays are part of a Politically Correct, "Sainted minority group" and when you are afforded this accolade, you can do no wrong in society, whatever happens, is in some way the fault of someone who is not in a "Sainted group". So in this court case any admonishment from the judge, let alone a prosecution, would have resulted in the accusation of, "Homophobic Nazis" being levelled at the justice system.

The authorities are simply terrified of controlling or curbing ANY excess by groups like, "The Gays". i would wager if a gay actually died at the hands of other gays during a violent orgy of crazed sex, the Coroner would make a verdict of "Accidental death!" and any further questions as to the circumstances of the death would be met with, "Well, that's what gays do, so fuck off you Gay Hater and stop trying to stop our fun, we've got enough trouble trying find another playmate to beat to death!"

So you fisting fans don't get too excited, because I can assure you that heterosexual fisting, will end up getting banned in the end, whist gay fisting will be deemed ok as part of the gays profound right to, "Express their sexual actvities free from opression!"

Call me a bluff old traditionalist if you will but Jim really does make a valid and compelling point here

... if proctology is your thing then go to medical school and learn how to do it properly ... training vids (sorry, 'fisting' porn) are no substitute for seven years of med school. !shocked!

Theres obviously a market for it
the same way theres a market for old guys and young girls and pissing on each other, it doesnt do it for me YUCK!
but each to there own

Anna x

Yep; all this means that IN THIS CASE the jury found for the defendant.
'Obscenity' still has no rigid legal definition [how can one abide by the law
when no-one can say what the law actually is? Absurd, like something out of
Cloud-Cuckoo-Land]].

The courts will still be able to hold the mere threat of prosecution over those
unwilling to stand up for themselves [and incidentally thereby upending the
tried-and-tested juridical notion that the Law should protect ALL its citizens,
and not be used by Government to persecute any sections of the community
they happen to view with disfavour.

What the law is saying, by indirection, is that what is an integral part of the
sex-life of a significant minority of the populace- fisting- is effectively illegal.
I'm sure many judges would be horrified, Queen Victoria-style, to learn that
lesbians and gays are 'at it' even more than heteros : -)

Juries, on the other hand, are being more worldly and less proscriptive- thank
fuck.

Ever heard of the Spanner case?

jj wrote:

> Ever heard of the
> Spanner
> case?
>
Yes I have and that as in 1990, since then the vice like grip of Political Correctness has tightened so much that I believe that such a case couldn never be brought again against gays. On the other hand such a case could be brought against straights! We do not have the protection that Political Correctness affords to minority groups.

Are you saying, then, that the jury would have convicted yesterday had it
been a straight fisting flick?