Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 08:33:00 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Only Fans and all that stuff...

Started by lipsink, November 20, 2020, 05:02:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

thenoise

Quote from: paruses on November 24, 2020, 10:24:41 AM
Wouldn't it depend on where it was made? Or is there a restriction on viewing such stuff?

Curious rather than coming across as now being really nervous and formatting hard drives.

I first heard about it when a video company in Glasgow or somewhere was busted for making them. Not just insects but baby mice,etc. Grim stuff.

UK law is a bit behind,of course, but aren't we in theory only allowed to buy BBFC approved R18 material in a licenced sexe shoppe?

holyzombiejesus

#61
Someone in stoke was done for doing the same thing. Won't go in to details but it was pretty disturbing.

*Contains graphic descriptions of animal torture*
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/19/ukcrime.tonythompson
*Contains graphic descriptions of animal torture*


Ambient Sheep

EXTREME CAUTION!!!

Quote from: holyzombiejesus on November 24, 2020, 02:12:38 PM
Someone in stoke was done for doing the same thing. Won't go in to details but it was pretty disturbing.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/19/ukcrime.tonythompson

The opening paragraph of that is one of the worst things, if not THE worst thing[nb]I've deliberately avoided reading about the exploits of Mexican drug barons.[/nb] I've ever read in my life.  I read it back in 2002 and thankfully managed to forget it.  "Pretty disturbing" is underselling it.  Be really really really sure you want to read that before you do.


JaDanketies

The ringleader in that crush porn circle tried to get himself some positive press for his haulage and logistics company a year or so ago, and it blew up in his face. Company is now marked as closed on Google, and he got a lot of negative publicity and petitions against him and had to return some award to the local paper.

Marner and Me

These are the sort of people drug testing should be used on.

holyzombiejesus

Quote from: Ambient Sheep on November 24, 2020, 02:18:37 PM
EXTREME CAUTION!!!

The opening paragraph of that is one of the worst things, if not THE worst thing[nb]I've deliberately avoided reading about the exploits of Mexican drug barons.[/nb] I've ever read in my life.  I read it back in 2002 and thankfully managed to forget it.  "Pretty disturbing" is underselling it.  Be really really really sure you want to read that before you do.

I've amended my post. Sorry.

Quote from: JaDanketies on November 24, 2020, 02:31:49 PM
The ringleader in that crush porn circle tried to get himself some positive press for his haulage and logistics company a year or so ago, and it blew up in his face. Company is now marked as closed on Google, and he got a lot of negative publicity and petitions against him and had to return some award to the local paper.


He's regional general manager at Palletways UK now

https://www.logisticsbusiness.com/transport-distribution/road-transport-haulage/further-10-year-contract-to-pallet-freight-network/



idunnosomename

Quote from: holyzombiejesus on November 24, 2020, 02:12:38 PM
Someone in stoke was done for doing the same thing. Won't go in to details but it was pretty disturbing.

*Contains graphic descriptions of animal torture*
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/19/ukcrime.tonythompson
*Contains graphic descriptions of animal torture*
unnecessary too imo. "the new porn" my arse. Not saying it shouldnt have been reported but utterly sensationalist shit

idunnosomename

And this craig chapman cunt mustve had some clients and those some damning secrets who now work at the stoke sentinel judging by the gushing praise they give him

TrenterPercenter

#69
Quote from: paruses on November 24, 2020, 10:14:48 AM
Trenter's points about the balance of exploitation are interesting and of more value than simply pronouncing something good or bad because it's nudity or sex.

I'm very keen on people being able to do what they like with their bodies as long as no one is getting harmed.  I don't see why in the case of the sex trade the consumers are rarely considered (of course that comes with the heavy caveat that the upmost concern should be for women's safety from exploitation and coersion as this is the biggest danger).

The Onlyfans things is interesting because it would seem it removes a lot of that risk for women (though I suspect stalker and abuse still occurs for performers) and for all intents and purposes many are placed in a position of power with "fans", working on their own volition, with the power to abuse that power and coerce their fans.  I've said this before but a big seam of sexism is the de-emotionalising of men[nb]Btw I should point out here this is done mainly by other men, in my experience most women are simply ignorant or not interested it for various (some quite legitimate) reasons[/nb], they just don't exist as emotional beings, similarly as women are reduced down to sexualised and baby making body parts men are reduced down to drives and urges.  [nb]It's fanciable nonsense that just happens to suit narratives for certain members of both sexes.  My view is that fostering an emotionalised male archetype would be a great ally to feminism and equality (as at the moment we've only got bad faith actors in MRAs that are not really interested in this aspect).  In doing this we have to stop being lazy and just repeating sexist tropes about men only being interested in sex, overall they are no more or less interested in sex than women, it's just because of the shocking historical legacy of sexism toward women, womens wants and desires have not been catered for.[/nb] 

So it is highly likely that some "sad, lonely" men are possibly also vulnerable individuals seeking imaginary romance (we could go further and say almost certainly there will be people with various intellectual and spectrum disabilities that could very easily be exploited and even the performer may not be aware they are exploiting them). 

There is also something here about couples, as me personally and I imagine my partner would feel the same would be much more concerned about them seeking titilation from an imaginary partner than watching a porn movie that isn't designed to occupy anything but a detached from the real world fantasy.

TrenterPercenter

Also on the non-sex side of things it appears to just be the fetishing of the rich and desirable (or the illusion of) which is very symptomatic of a fanatical and narcissitic society.  Neo-celebrities for Neo-capitalism, giving people access to lives they can never have, whilst distracting them from asking why that might be.

I can actually see this being very popular with women perhaps as an extension of that peering into the lives of people thing those trashy magazines provide.

Ambient Sheep

Quote from: holyzombiejesus on November 24, 2020, 02:39:34 PM
I've amended my post. Sorry.

No need to apologise, I'm ok, I'd read it before and I don't think it will stick too much a second time either.

I was more worried about other people, so the extra warning is a good move.  Thanks.


Quote from: idunnosomename on November 24, 2020, 02:49:04 PM
unnecessary too imo. "the new porn" my arse. Not saying it shouldnt have been reported but utterly sensationalist shit

Agreed.  To put that level of salacious detail -- far worse than anything else in the rest of the article -- in the opening paragraph (or indeed at all), with absolutely no warning is a cunt's trick.  Not sure what paper he thought he was writing for...

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: thenoise on November 24, 2020, 01:43:10 PM
I first heard about it when a video company in Glasgow or somewhere was busted for making them. Not just insects but baby mice,etc. Grim stuff.

UK law is a bit behind,of course, but aren't we in theory only allowed to buy BBFC approved R18 material in a licenced sexe shoppe?

I think May's tweaks also put some stuff in a legal grey area.

IE watersports/facesitting etc are deemed to be something that can't get approval, so shouldn't be sold here, but don't automatically fall foul of the extreme pornography legislation, so not illegal to posses.

JaDanketies

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on November 24, 2020, 03:38:03 PM
I think May's tweaks also put some stuff in a legal grey area.

IE watersports/facesitting etc are deemed to be something that can't get approval, so shouldn't be sold here, but don't automatically fall foul of the extreme pornography legislation, so not illegal to posses.

That's correct. It's illegal to produce or sell a lot of this content in the UK but it's fine to watch it. I don't even think Corbyn would've revoked the extreme pornography bill either; I think this 'freedom' is one that isn't coming back.


'Producing' includes simply photographing yourself committing sex acts upon yourself, such as Boris Johnson's former aide who liked 'sounding', or putting objects in his urethra. The fact that he got found not guilty is small comfort - the guy had his life ruined and had to appear in court because took and shared photos of his own willy.

Yet our nation isn't the dumbest, even in the Anglosphere. Australia banned reams of porn and cuff people at the border for bringing it in. For instance, in Australia, flat chested porn is illegal because it's "kinda like child porn" - a prohibition that is horrifically offensive to all those women who are self-conscious about their small titties. Whatever lawmaker came up with that one ought to have every small-chested woman stand in a line and knee them in the balls - which would be legal to film in England, but illegal if it was presented as porn.

pigamus


TrenterPercenter

Quote from: pigamus on November 24, 2020, 04:01:10 PM
What

That last one is mental

It's batty but it isn't really true if your read the article, its about women that look very young and therefore may be representative of of a child.  The small breasts just a characteristic that might be considered in this, you can look over 18 and have small breasts.

The article posted is one of those silly things where the headline says one thing and then the text says  actually it's not that.

JaDanketies

Yeah it seems if you are an older woman with a flat chest then you will likely be able to perform in porn, but if you are younger then you're probably banned.

QuoteAccording to Fiona Patten, Convenor of the Australian Sex Party: "We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup size."

Also reveals that the guy responsible for this bodyshaming prohibition is the laughably-named Senator Barnaby Joyce.

https://www.theregister.com/2010/01/28/australian_censors/

I think we and the Aussies also share a female ejaculate ban, too. I remember at the time, people criticised the extreme porn bill as being woman-hating because things like facesitting and female ejaculation were associated with female pleasure. But from a stringent reading of our laws, even a hard tweak of a man's nipples is verboten.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

While not wishing to be a puritanical prude, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit weirded out to hear how widespread this apparently is. I'm reminded of that Black Mirror episode with the talent show, in which the young woman auditions to be a singer, but accepts a job in pornography instead. Then again, maybe media like that is why I'm weirded out.

It's a bit like swearwords. They don't do any real harm by themselves, but you might be a bit concerned if your kids started throwing them around willy nilly.

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: JaDanketies on November 24, 2020, 04:24:22 PM

Also reveals that the guy responsible for this bodyshaming prohibition is the laughably-named Senator Barnaby Joyce.

That would be the same Barnaby Joyce, once Deputy PM of Australia, who's responsible for one of my favourite running gags on "Mad As Hell" - see it here, and knocked up his assistant then tried to pretend the baby wasn't his before divorcing his wife (with whom he'd already had four children), selling an interview to a TV station then suing someone for "invading his privacy", and is guaranteed to be on the wrong side of pretty much every political issue.

thenoise

Quote from: JaDanketies on November 24, 2020, 03:53:32 PM
That's correct. It's illegal to produce or sell a lot of this content in the UK but it's fine to watch it. I don't even think Corbyn would've revoked the extreme pornography bill either; I think this 'freedom' is one that isn't coming back.

Is selling videos on a site like OnlyFans exempt from BBFC classification then? I guess they aren't doing anything potentially extreme but just in case one of them is a squirter etc.

Another strange thing about R18 certificate, at least when it came in, was that everything fictional in porn was treated as though it was true for classification purposes. So a whole lot of classic story-based porn - a few of which arguably make the case for having some degree of artistic merit,at least in places- are de facto banned because their dramatic plot includes elements like eg coercion, one or more characters being drunk, etc. And the BBFC treat it as though the audience cant tell that it's pretend because they are also having sex. Hence sex shops being full of bland identikit modern gonzo. At 30 quid a dvd.

Sebastian Cobb

I think it fell on its arse but there was talk of making the BBFC classify international grumble sites or face a block.

Probably more a convenient place to drive in the concept of a Chinese-style national firewall, and of course the age-verification stuff was patently a scheme to force through a national "online-identity", the people pulling the strings who really, really want this shit don't go away when the party in charge loses an election.

flotemysost

Quote from: JaDanketies on November 24, 2020, 03:53:32 PM

Yet our nation isn't the dumbest, even in the Anglosphere. Australia banned reams of porn and cuff people at the border for bringing it in. For instance, in Australia, flat chested porn is illegal because it's "kinda like child porn" - a prohibition that is horrifically offensive to all those women who are self-conscious about their small titties. Whatever lawmaker came up with that one ought to have every small-chested woman stand in a line and knee them in the balls - which would be legal to film in England, but illegal if it was presented as porn.

Haha, what?! How do they decree the point at which a performer crosses the line from being flat-chested to acceptably endowed - I mean for lots of women it fluctuates throughout the month anyway, then obviously there must be some trans women performers who don't have breasts, etc. etc.

I assume the ban is probably on porn that specifically focuses on that and apparent youthfulness as a titillating selling point, which I guess could be heading into questionable territory, but it still reads like a parody of woefully misguided prudishness. As someone who's on the petite side myself it's definitely not the worst thing to see performers who look a bit more like me now and then, but no, as always it's women's bodies which are at fault and must be banned.

I remember my Media Studies AS-Level module on film censorship included a bit about the R18 certificate - revising what is and isn't allowed was a bit of an eye-opener at 16/17. Though at the time I probably found it marginally more interesting than Chartism or Restoration literature.

And yeah, the female ejaculation ban always struck me as a bit nuts - I can sort of see the logic behind face-sitting as it could in theory be a risky act, but how on earth is the former hurting anyone? Well, I did know someone who said he got a burning sensation from skin contact with his girlfriend's emissions, but I don't think he ever complained to the BBFC about it.

Appreciate the warnings re: descriptions of animal abuse btw, absolutely no interest in having anything of the sort mentally imprinted on my retinas during the last week of lockdown.

Ferris

Quote from: JaDanketies on November 24, 2020, 03:53:32 PM
I don't even think Corbyn would've revoked the extreme pornography bill either

It does look good for Corbyn[nb]depending on his posture in the act[/nb]

touchingcloth

Quote from: Ambient Sheep on November 24, 2020, 02:18:37 PM
EXTREME CAUTION!!!

The opening paragraph of that is one of the worst things, if not THE worst thing[nb]I've deliberately avoided reading about the exploits of Mexican drug barons.[/nb] I've ever read in my life.  I read it back in 2002 and thankfully managed to forget it.  "Pretty disturbing" is underselling it.  Be really really really sure you want to read that before you do.

I got linked to one of those videos when I was at university, and it was horrendous. It was bizarre, starting with a close up of a glamorously-dressed woman smoking a cigarette (perhaps even using a cigarette holder) before she
Spoiler alert
trod on an animal with her stiletto
[close]
. I watched it for longer than I should have done because I was waiting for the punchline, but then the realisation hit me that it was fucking real and not some weird sketch. Still makes me queasy thinking about it.

flotemysost

Fuck that, seriously. My "disturbing porn/snuff clip someone showed me at uni" was the infamous Mr. Hands video, which from what I remember wasn't even really graphic in the sense that it's quite hard to make out what's going on - similarly I convinced myself it couldn't possibly have been real, only to experience a delayed dawning horror upon watching the documentary Zoo a few months later and putting two and two together.

I had mixed feelings about Don't Fuck With Cats as a documentary but it did make a strong case that animal abuse being filmed for kicks should be taken pretty fucking seriously.

thenoise

Fucking hell, you mixed with some wronguns. Worst thing I ever got was 'meatspin'.
Anything I saw worse than that was my own fault :(

Marner and Me

Meatspin
1 man 1 jar
1 priest 1 nun
Lemon Party
Man hanging upside down by his balls

Are stuff I've been sent and either found amusing (meatspin) or laughed at (1 man 1 jar, idiocy and man hanging upside down)


Stuff of that ilk I don't mind, a bit of gross out and usually a laugh.

Sebastian Cobb

It were all goatse in my days, positively jejune by modern standards.


JaDanketies

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on November 25, 2020, 10:18:22 AM
It were all goatse in my days, positively jejune by modern standards.

Goatse, Tubgirl and Bakla were the Holy Trinity. Bakla isn't even gross and it was innate transphobia that it was ever considered in the same veins as Goatse and Tubgirl. I guess the joke was that you thought she was pretty and then bang, she's got a willy; there was not enough trans discourse back in those days obv.

There was this image gallery on Stileproject where a guy did a big sloppy shit and then put it in a syringe and injected it into his willy and then did a wank and the shit came out of his willy.

I would've never shared any videos of a kitten getting stomped on with my friends. I remember a friend showing me some woman doing some sex act with a dog and it also wasn't the kind of thing I would've shared.

There were those harlequin foetuses too. It just was something that made me squeamish as a teenager, but nowadays I think it's heartbreaking and it's obscene that people / I would share such a tragedy for the lols. Like with one-guy-one-jar it might be a tragedy too but at least it's the idiot's fault.

Two girls one cup was the last big one I remember that was actually funny / obscene.