egafd.com

potential bollocks!
TRANSSEXUAL BEAUTY QUEENS VOL. 6
When submitted to the BBFC the work had a running time of 85m 54s.
To obtain this category cuts of 0m 4s were required., some or all of these cuts were substitutions. The cuts were Compulsory.
Cuts required to two images of fisting which potentially contravene current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

Now then, they cut because it 'potentially' breaks an act of law. Is this taking the phrase 'being up one's own arse' literally?

Joe's -
BBFC require "Cuts required to two images of fisting which potentially contravene current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959"

It contravenes their guidelines -
"Penetration by any object likely to cause actual harm or associated with violence"
They obviously haven't heard of childbirth!

OK, in this instance they were presumably considering anal fisting as it is a gay vid, which I understand has to be done carefully and considerately as the rectal lining is easily damaged.

Ditto vaginal fisting, but to a lesser extent - It's evolved to cope with this stuff.

Yeah - "Potentially" breaks an act of law? What does that mean? They're consenting adults aren't they - and didn't the gay community fight long & hard to legally do what the fuck they like to each other? Reckon it would hold up in court?

I've seen a TV "documentary" on the porn industry which included a shoot in Eastern Europe. The two girls got so pissed-off with the stud that they eventually took matters into their own hands to give each other a decent orgasm. The TV camera cut, and the narrative implied they were fisting, but that on UK TV they weren't even allowed to DESCRIBE what the girls were doing to each other. It went on to commented that even the "hardened" TV crew were amazed at the ease with which the girls managed it. Sweet Young Things!

Like our Integrated Transport Policy, it seems that control of what we are allowed to watch or even discuss in public is the worst in Europe.

Was this what they were doing; I always wondered when they said they coudn't even say what was going on.

It seems strange that this was considered so risque, as earlier in the same programme, in an inteview with an American vice detective, he mentioned more extreme things such as, for example, beastiallity. My mind was working overtime when after this conversation, they decided they could't say what was happening - very strange

!johnEuk wrote:
>
> Joe's -
> BBFC require "Cuts required to two images of fisting which
> potentially contravene current interpretation of the Obscene
> Publications Act 1959"
>
> It contravenes their guidelines -
> "Penetration by any object likely to cause actual harm or
> associated with violence"
> They obviously haven't heard of childbirth!
>
> OK, in this instance they were presumably considering anal
> fisting as it is a gay vid, which I understand has to be done
> carefully and considerately as the rectal lining is easily
> damaged.
>
> Ditto vaginal fisting, but to a lesser extent - It's evolved
> to cope with this stuff.
>
> Yeah - "Potentially" breaks an act of law? What does that
> mean? They're consenting adults aren't they - and didn't the
> gay community fight long & hard to legally do what the fuck
> they like to each other? Reckon it would hold up in court?
>
> I've seen a TV "documentary" on the porn industry which
> included a shoot in Eastern Europe. The two girls got so
> pissed-off with the stud that they eventually took matters
> into their own hands to give each other a decent orgasm. The
> TV camera cut, and the narrative implied they were fisting,
> but that on UK TV they weren't even allowed to DESCRIBE what
> the girls were doing to each other. It went on to commented
> that even the "hardened" TV crew were amazed at the ease with
> which the girls managed it. Sweet Young Things!
>
> Like our Integrated Transport Policy, it seems that control
> of what we are allowed to watch or even discuss in public is
> the worst in Europe.

I wonder what'd happen in a court today to those gay S&M fans who got horrendous sentences a few years back just for doing their own thing.
"Our Joanie"'s 'Taboo' this week showed the spinelessness of our soi-disant 'opinion formers': (s)he who draws a conclusion only half-way fails to draw it at all. Government has no business arrogating to itself the right of moral choice: once you're 18, if you're not hurting anyone, go for it. And be a grown-up, unlike those fools in Westminster (and I thought the last vestiges of Puritanism had died with Sir Stifford Crapps and the Postwar Labour administration!!).
I despair of an ethico-moral "system" that says it's OK for kids to watch horrendous and potentially malforming violence but not a lady having a poo-poo/playing with her doggie/enjoying her veggies etc. There's not much rational thought in that, eh?

J's -
"It seems strange that this was considered so risque, as earlier in the same programme, in an inteview with an American vice detective, he mentioned more extreme things such as, for example, beastiallity. My mind was working overtime when after this conversation, they decided they could't say what was happening - very strange"

- And it was supposed to be a DOCUMENTARY!

As a matter of interest, beastiality isn't such a Big Deal in America as it seems to be here, but they have more remote rural areas... ;o)

I watched that particular episode of Ch 4's "Pornography" with my partner. After the scene we looked at each other quizically, and then simulataniously said "Fisting!". I've subsequently corresponded with the producer Isabel Tang - that's what they were doing.