Plus it would seem the wrong way around. Surely if it’s dangerous you would ban private individuals from face-sitting and insist that it only be allowed to take place under carefully controlled conditions between professionals ie “stunt” pornstars equipped with breathing apparatus and tongue supports and so on.
Given the fact that pretty much nobody actually pays for internet porn, isn’t this kind of a mute point? Or are they saying the actors can’t be paid for these acts?
According to the link, it seems that sex shops won’t be allowed to sell the DVDs, and that such porn won’t be available as video on demand, either. But it contradicts what is said elsewhere, hence my question.
Shodan, all the talk about breath and suffocation in the articles makes it seem to me they are being quite literal about the face-sitting part – which makes me wonder: Say, if Person A is **not **actually **sitting **on Person B’s face, but hovering above in a kneeling/standing straddle, where Person B can reach up to apply lingual stimulation freely and unencumbered, is that in the clear… (AND does this also apply to teabagging?)
Well, I guess after all there will *not *always be an England…
a tragic day for the remains of a once-proud Empire when all videos of stern governesses disciplining naughty boys will have to be made in the US with visiting UK casts 
OTOH, besides the “English” fetish per se, who looks to the UK for kinky/filthy porn anyway? The Yanks, Czechs and Japanese will probably be able to cover that shortfall with very little expansion of shooting schedules. Japan already takes care of anything involving school uniforms for most of the Free World almost single-handed!
You know that your wife is getting fat when she sits on your face and you can’t hear the TV
This is promising interesting court cases.
I wonder [del]if[/del] when a court case will have to deal with home produced porn not intended for sale, and including such forbidden practices, that somehow ended up on the computer screen of some offenderati.
It does beg the question. Has anyone, ever been suffocated and accidentally killed in this manner?
Maybe, just maybe an aggravated spouse choose this way to end their partner’s life. But even that seems far fetched. A pillow over their head while they are sleeping would be much more effective.
There’s no justification for banning this in adult film, based on safety concerns.
Trying to kill someone with your crotch is likely to get you a distinctive and extremely painful bite…
That would only the ban on verbal abuse.
Which I’m sure would still be perfectly legal in UK too, if one of the actors was always an octopus.
It’s interesting how the sentiment is still around. It still kind of lingers.
I could pick out about five people I knew in that demo. 
It’s a nonsensical law and was a nonsensical law when it was brought in for DVDs sold in sex shops. The home-grown DVD porn industry is pretty much dead, so it wasn’t a big deal until it applied to streaming services.
The “pretend rape” bit is the bit that most people can get behind banning, but the rest of this law is just bizarre and anti-woman. A lot of the practices described are prevalent in female dominatrix porn which tends to be controlled by the women involved. One of the banned practices can only happen if a woman ejaculates, which usually implies pleasure for her. The ejaculate is banned because it contains some urea, so they’ve banned it on the same grounds that they’ve banned watersports. But sweat also contains urea. People often sweat in pornos. And urea is not a terribly harmful substance - certainly no moreso than male ejaculate, which is not banned.
None of it is dangerous. Well, dangerous in the sense that drinking a glass of water is dangerous, because you could choke, but no more than that.
Next up for a ban: drinking a glass of water in porn. Who knows what it really contains? :smack:
It’s not a moot point. Some people do actually make money from this stuff; I’m not involved in any of it, but a good friend of mine is, and is actually in most of the media coverage on this; it’s how she makes her living. Through her I know a couple of other people who also make money from porn. So someone’s paying.
I don’t understand how they can ban squirting. My ex was a squirter, like so heavy and for so long you may think she was peeing. There was no way to control it. It would be like banning men from cumming on camera. Bizarre.
Waterports and squirting seem like a really inefficient way to float a boat.
Hey, she made some quality stuff! Great legs and feet, nice boobs and seemed to really know her way around…
What watersports can you do without floating some sort of boat, though? Not that many. Synchronized swimming, water polo, yeah. But you need a boat to ski, you need a board to surf, etc.
Fanny. Trust me. 
Cite? While the actual figures are hard to get at, this article indicates it’s at least a several-billion dollar industry. Someone’s paying for it, even if you don’t.
Learn somethin’ every day I guess.