egafd.com

now that h/c is legal in this country i am wondering what people who use the forum and especialy makers of porn think about how far they want the censorship laws to go.at the moment pissing fisting and other stuff is censored should it be passed? if it is what is next? shitting, animals etc and where do we draw the line?i know this kind of stuff is available in amsterdam but should we sell it over here.personally while pissing and that kind of thing is not my bag im not against it but i feel porn has moved on just from people having sex to people trying to out flith each other.should we get back to the basics which are good looking girls having sex,not two complete dogs fisting each other.
respect the mighty zasuna

How about going further back - to erotica?

how about letting people buy anything featuring consenting adults,regardless of whether its 'your bag' or not.

Absolutely - just saying what I would like to see *in addition* to the other stuff.

I agree that anything featuring consenting adults should be ok. I also agree with Alec re the lack of erotica. The one thing I cannot understand is why animal porn is legal in europe. How the hell can a dog consent to sex??? And what happens to these unfortunate animals after the filmakers have had thier fun? I certainly would not let these wierdos anywhere near my dog. Certain large Dutch mail order companies think we in Britain are backward for not allowing this sort of freakish behaviour.

how can a dog consent to being someones pet, for that matter? fetch, fido!

as long as the animals arent in pain, i dont think the animals could care less or indeed know what the fuck is going on,so talking about consent is a mute point as the animal would have to know what it is its doing to not consent to it. and as they are not self-aware, they dont. so the only valid argument against this stuff is one of cruelty. if the creture is suffering then its illegal and would be banned for that reason ,not because its considered 'sick'.a problem many people have is they begin to project human emotions on to animals and expect it to work,whilst conveniently forgetting that some of these people are the reason millions of animals are slaughted for food.then they complain about animal welfare for cratures that they find acceptably cute enough to survive.animals are not able to understand the concept of sex or pornography,so asking wether its right or wrong is pointless,also.

it's not a question of how far censorship laws should go - they should just GO!

if what is being depicted is between consenting adults, then it should be permitted, imo. i don't think it's appropriate for the state to set arbitrary limits upon what it's citizens can and cannot do with their own bodies.

however, abolishing censorship doesn't mean the floodgates will be opened up for paedophilia. apart from breaching the consenting adults requirement, it's against the law! the same legal controls also apply to bestiality.

if we think something is morally unacceptable, as a society we should have the guts to legislate against it - not rely upon the patronising dispensations of the great and the good, or the case by case verdicts of juries, deciding for the rest of us whether something is obscene or not.

obscenity is pretty much redundant as an effective means of implementing the law, nowadays - there just isn't the level of consensus that obtained in the past. that is why things have become more liberalised, of late. the police and the cps have been unable to secure convictions on grounds of obscenity, as time and time again, what they thought were hard and fast cases, were summarily dismissed by juries made up of people like you and me!

we should make the bbfc the purely classifying body it's name suggests it to be. who knows - perhaps we'll end up being a little bit more adult, about the whole adult entertainment business! (getting utopian now - better stop!)

Your argument is flawed,me. You say if the animal does not know what is going on and is not in pain then it is ok. Peodophiles would say that what they do is ok because a child may not know what is going on or be in pain. Clearly both are wrong because in either case consent is impossible. Both involve an adult human using thier power and strength over a child or animal which cannot defend itself or refuse. Thats why both are morally wrong. The RSPCA have said they will prosecute animal porn on these grounds even if normal stuff is becoming acceptable. And just to confuse things further according to BBC Wildlife ON One peadophilia is normal in chimpanzees but sex with other types of monkey or animal never happens.

and you have proved me right,by projecting human ideals on to animals. and as for the paedophile stuff WTF?????? I never mentioned anything about it ,we are discusing animal porn! are u trying to compere the effects of sex on an animal with that on a child? a child which will grow up to develop phycological trauma because of abuse.and a animal which is in capeable of developing anything concious,at all? oh,mr.magoo you really have messed up.