Drugs: Ban Everything!

Even by the standards of modern legislation, the psychoactive substances bill is startlingly inane. It seems to ban any substance which can cause a mental or emotional reaction. As must be obvious, that's almost everything in the world. Did this taste remind you of your mother's cooking? It's a psychoactive substance. Did it bring you a moment of happiness? It's a psychoactive substance. The government is about to ban almost everything...

Ian Dunt on politics.co.uk on a spectacularly dumb piece of tabloid-friendly populist drivel.

Where will it leave, say, poppers?

It's so ill thought-out surely the legislation will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions?

What stupid idea will they come up with next?

Oh, mandatory age and ID Checks if you want to watch porn!

PS Vice clarifies that it's all based on a load of bollocks...

You know those legal highs that the government is about to ban en masse because they kill two people per week? They don't kill two people per week, or anything close.

Wednesday's Queen's speech, the first airing of a fully Tory parliamentary programme since 1996, included an unprecedented blanket ban on selling new psychoactive substances.

The announcement was met with various responses. Most importantly, a briefly-amusingVine of the Queen set to an Avicii 2011 Trance Energy lightshow drop. But alsowarnings that the ban turns centuries of British legal tradition on its head, and plenty ofTwitter users saying that the 97 deaths from legal highs in 2012 pales in comparison to the thousands of deaths linked to booze.

But for anyone with even a fleeting interest in the issue, the pertinent response should have been: Why is everyone in this story about banning legal highs talking about 97 deaths, when that figure is largely composed of drugs that were not legal at the time people died from taking them?

The dramatic "97 deaths" figure has travelled well, being quoted by the BBC, the Press Association and the Daily Mail, among others. While yesterday was bad news for the guys selling Bob Marley weed grinders and "Adihash" T-shirts, it was very good news for a right-wing think tank founded by Iain Duncan Smith called the Centre for Social Justice, or CSJ

The CSJ has a strong evangelical Christian bent and is extremely influential in the Tory party. They have been pushing for a blanket ban for a while, so for them yesterday's news was a major victory. The think tank's lead man on legal highs, Rupert Oldham-Reid,hailed the proposed law in an article for Conservative Home, quoting everyone's favourite figure for legal high deaths, or something close to it. "Most tragically, in the last Parliament, the number of deaths associated with 'legal highs' has gone from one per month to over two per week," he wrote. The influence of the CSJ was also seen in a BBC piece published earlier this week, which declared: "Research from the Centre for Social Justice showed that there were 97 recorded deaths from legal highs in the UK in 2012."

Except there obviously weren't...

Porn Panic: Addicted To Nonsense

At the beginning of the week, an unsettling headline swept across news sites. A tenth of the UK's 12 to 13-year-olds are, apparently, ADDICTED to porn. The BBC led the charge, rehashing a press release sent out by the NSPCC, which is launching a campaign with Childline – Fight Against Porn Zombies (FAPZ) – to highlight the effects of too much exposure to porn.

Other news outlets followed suit and each story stuck to the same format: scary headline about children unable to stop watching porn, a couple more stats and a quote from Esther Rantzen. No one was questioning the findings themselves.

The aims of the NSPCC campaign are admirable: children are undoubtedly seeing more porn than ever before, and considering the dire state of sex-ed in British schools it's clearly a good thing that the charity is doing what it can to address the issue. But the idea of porn "addiction" is highly contested among academics and medics, so why did so many children put their guilty hands up?

Such inflammatory findings, when published by a respected national charity, would usually be accompanied by a full report of the study. Not in this case. All the NSPCC would offer was an extended press release with some more quotes from concerned parties.

It turns out the study was conducted by a "creative market research" group called OnePoll. "Generate content and news angles with a OnePoll PR survey, and secure exposure for your brand," reads the company's blurb. "Our PR survey team can help draft questions, find news angles, design infographics, write and distribute your story."

The company is super popular on MoneySavingExpert.com, where users are encouraged to sign up and make a few quid. Here's what that website says: "Mega-popular for its speedy surveys, OnePoll runs polls for the press, meaning fun questions about celebs and your love life."

So the company behind these stats about porn addiction are known for their quick and easy surveys and promise to generate headline-grabbing stats. An unusual choice, perhaps, for such a sensitive subject...

Frankie Mullen, Vice

'If a statistic seems wrong or unbelievable, it probably is...' - Someone's Law (forgotten whose).

Edit:It's Twyman's law.

And as the author points out,anyone who says people can get 'addicted to porn' is an idiot (slight paraphrase).

Update: But don't let that stop you...

'A shocking ten per cent of 12 and 13-year-olds believe they are already addicted to watching porn' etc etc.

PS More on bad data churnalism and dodgy polls.

Google: Blogger Off

Google is banning public explicit photos and videos from its blogging service Blogger, and giving affected users just one month to comply.

The new rules require any blog with “sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video” to take them down by 23 March, or the blog will be made private by Google. A private blog can only be seen by the owner or admins of the blog, and people who the owner has shared the blog with.

Google promises that the majority of users of the service, which Google acquired from Twitter co-founder Evan Williams’ Pyra Labs in 2003, won’t see any change from the new rules. But many users are concerned that the new rules represent a huge about-turn from Google’s previously stated support of explicit material on its platform. 

The company’s previous policy said: “We do allow adult content on Blogger, including images or videos that contain nudity or sexual activity … All blogs marked as ‘adult’ will be placed behind an ‘adult content’ warning interstitial.” Its only exceptions were to ban illegal explicit content, explicit images shared without the subject’s consent (commonly known as “revenge porn”) and making money on adult content...

The Guardian.

Oh for buttfuck's sake!

Do Google really expect me to go back and check through nearly five years worth of posts?

I'm pretty sure the only 'sexually explicit or graphic nude image' I've ever published was this one of Hunx sporting an erection.

I've now doctored it in haste to save the world's morals, and in case any convent schoolgirls stumble across my humble blog.

If Google can find any more, please let me know.

Google say they'll still allow some forms of nudity “if the content offers a substantial public benefit, for example in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts.”

I think this covers my (metaphorical) arse.

Update: Google appear to have reversed on this and allowed nuddy pics.

Porn: The Following Content Is Not Acceptable

The following content is not acceptable from the 1st December 2014

Today marks the beginning of a new phase in a sustained campaign of internet censorship which has wide-reaching consequences beyond the mere production and consumption of pornography.

These new regulations impose even more draconian restrictions on the types of pornography that can be depicted on regulated Video on Demand services. Previously the Crown Prosecution Service’s Guidance on the OPA provided a list of sexual activities which were deemed illegal to publish.

However these new Regulations specifically state that only sexual content that is equivalent to the BBFC R18 Category can be sold via VoD service. This is a significantly lower threshold.

According to Nikki Whiplash, a regulated video on demand service provider who attended a recent ATVOD and BBFC led seminar on the impact of the new regulations, the following sexual activities will be deemed either acceptable or unacceptable at R18 classification level:

Watersports and Squirting
Peeing and squirting are acceptable if not performed onto another person and/or then consumed.

Squirting during sex or masturbation is acceptable if fairly brief, isolated and not deliberately consumed or put onto a body. It would be acceptable to imply that it was licked up if could be deemed as to be simulated.

Fisting

Fisting is not acceptable. Penetration with all five digits beyond last knuckle is not acceptable; but all five digits of two or more hands would be acceptable as long as not past last knuckle.

Ofcom have sought medical guidance on fisting and don't believe it to be a dangerous act to perform. However, as the CPS’ Guidelines specifically cite fisting as obscene the BBFC can't pass fisting for classification. The BBFC acknowledge that they are well aware of the decision in R v Peacock but are obliged to have regard to CPS’ OPA Guidelines.

Amputee Insertion
Since the BBFC haven't ever needed to consider amputee insertion, they reserve their position on the matter.

Enemas
Enemas are acceptable if once they are squirted out they don't hit anyone else and does not contain feces. It is not acceptable to subsequently lick up what has been expelled; unless this is simulated (for example switched for another substance).

Catheters
Catheterisation is acceptable, even if catheter connected to mouth; presuming that the tube is not transparent so that the liquid moving through cannot be seen.

Eating ejaculate
Any form of consumption of (male) ejaculate is acceptable.

Vomiting
Vomiting may be acceptable if it is not performed as part of a sexual act; and is not visibly enjoyed by the participants.

‘Public’ Sex
Should the content features any nudity or other activity which might outrage the public decency, then the BBFC must be assured that the material in question was shot on private land with no public access or shot abroad. However, simulating the impression that it is in public is acceptable, fir example a vehicle with tinted windows. The key consideration that the material has not been created in the public eye.

‘Age Play’
Anything which might ‘encourage’ incest or sex with children under the age of eighteen is absolutely unacceptable.

However school uniforms are acceptable presuming that there are no references to the performer pretending to be under eighteen; and participants clearly 'of legal age' and participating in a consensual adult role play

Weapons
Sexual activities performed at gunpoint are unacceptable if it is “believable”. This will depend on tone and believability. Basically if it looks like it could be a non-consensual activity then it is not acceptable.

Bondage and Restraint
Full bondage in conjunction with a gag is unacceptable, since there needs to be an obvious (to the viewer) means to signal to stop. Hence it is acceptable if not all four limbs are tied. Thus a means to indicate the withdrawal of consent must be visible to the viewer. For example full bondage and gagging would be acceptable if there is a safe signal which is defined as part of the scene.

Thus elements like artistic license, storyline and context become important. Hence a straightforward bondage scenario with no surrounding context is less likely to be acceptable than something with features a clearly signaled role play component.

BDSM Pain play
Acts which if copied by the uninitiated have the potential to cause injuries more than transient and trifling are extremely unlikely to be acceptable.

Only "moderate" pain play is acceptable. Thus reddening of the skin acceptable but no raised welts, blood and bruising are not.

Needle-Play
Needles are more likely to be considered acceptable as they only cause transient and trifling injury similar to legal tattooing.



Facesitting as Breathing Restriction
Facesitting employed as a breathing restriction or any other form of smothering is unacceptable. However, facesitting without breathing restriction is acceptable. There is no flexibility on this. The airways must remain open. Apparently the rationale for this distinction is that men trying this at home might die.

Ballbusting
Ballbusting may be acceptable, depending on the level. OFCOM recommend submitting clips in question for review. It will come down to definition of moderate pain and whether viewers at home are likely to sustain serious injury if they try it at home. Hence ball-yanking is not acceptable; whereas controlled ball stretching is acceptable.

Trampling

This will depend on the surface upon which the person is being trampled on.

Urethral Sounds
The insertion of urethral sounds is acceptable presuming that they are not inserted so far in as to enter the bladder; and that appropriate sterile and safety considerations are taken such as the use of lubricant and gloves.

Insertion of objects like buttplugs
The insertion of other objects is acceptable presuming that it is clear that they couldn't get. Hence the use of buttplugs is acceptable. Hence a clip of a mobile phone vanishing up an anus would not be acceptable, despite being a spoof, on the basis that people might try it at home.

Power Tools

The use of power tools is unacceptable, since most people have one lying around at home. However purpose designed “fucking-machines” are acceptable. The test in question is the 'association with violence'.

Head-Scissoring
Head-scissoring is acceptable, presuming that it is gentle. However, if it is seen to be pushing on the carotid restricting blood flow then it is not acceptable. Hence, choking sounds or reddening of face as a result are not acceptable. As soon as any pressure is exerted it would be considered a choke hold and therefore not acceptable.

Wrestling
Wrestling is acceptable only if knockout moves are not deployed. Facesitting and seemingly non gentle scissoring are not acceptable.

Gagging
Gagging on cock and deep throat are acceptable if not for the whole scene. However, language of the 'gag on my cock' variety is unacceptable due to the reference to choking.

COMMENTARY – THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS CENSORSHIP

Pornography is the canary in the coalmine of free speech: it is the first freedom to die. If this assault on liberty is allowed to go unchallenged, other freedoms will fall as a consequence.

This declaration of State censorship will affect millions of consenting adults who choose to view British pornography; impose an unnecessary trade barrier, which has already caused independent UK producers to shut down; result in a significant loss of revenue to The Treasury; is practically unworkable as it can be circumvented by proxy servers; and has implications for all forms of freedom of expression on the internet.

Of particular concern in terms of loss of freedom is the underlying intent to allow undesirable foreign websites to be blocked under UK ISP’s filtering systems. This has immeasurable implications on freedom of information and net neutrality.

Today, Backlash have launched a campaign to challenge this régime of State censorship disguised as regulation.

• Myles Jackman, The Obscenity Lawyer - reprinted by kind permission of the author. x

Worth re-publishing at length for its sheer comedy value - the above is just a rough guide.

Please note this only applies to UK-made 'Video On Demand' (VoD) content - thus far... and if you've never seen British porn, well, you ain't missed much.

The whole thing is so silly, it can't stand.

Its affect will probably be slight, so I wouldn't get too hysterical about it - but as an example of our current state of anti-porn hysteria it speaks volumes.

For the status of other porn, please read Myles' article in full on his blog. He says he'll be posting soon on how these rulings will actually impact.

PS Other porn is available, and hotter.

Porn: What Are You Watching?

A new and completely reliable survey suggests what porn people are looking at.

Though it could just be a made-up press release by a porn website, and thus of no real significance.

Who can say?

Naked Men: Most Viewed

Daily Telegraph.

Only a very, very, very straight man - the writer is a former editor of Loaded - could make such a hilariously clueless and naive statement.

The fact that this is currently the most viewed story on the Telegraph online suggests there is quite a lot of demand and desire for this.

There are endless websites dedicated to running pictures of Famous Males in various states of undress.

(Though a quick peek at their comments sections shows they are far more popular with gay men, than straight women).

It takes literally seconds to find some celebrity shlong on the internet.

Let's see how I do - gimme five...

Oops!

Update: Queerty give their top 10 leaked male celeb nuddy pix.

Porn: Ask The Experts

The Times.

Sex Crimes: The Week In Stupid

Schoolgirl given police caution after sexting topless selfie to her boyfriend - Daily Mirror.

Teacher banned for life after having sex with 17 year-old girl he met in a nightclub when he was 23 - Daily Mail.

87% of new internet users reject Cameron's porn filters - The Independent.

Journalist guest on BBC Breakfast says John Barrowman's gay kiss was 'inappropriate for children' - Pink News.

Police warn skinny dippers they could be put on the sex offenders' register - BBC News.

Ladies and gentlemen, this country is now officially FUCT!

Tyger Takes On: The Perfect Body

Fagburn thoroughly enjoyed this programme on young male beauty, neurosis and narcissism - mainly for various reasons that it's probably best not to go into on a family blog like this.

And in spite of its predictable endless 'It's an epidemic!' hysteria.

And in spite of his research into this was done on the mean streets of Brighton.

Tyger [sic] did porn last week.

Apparently that is another EPIDEMIC! and we may soon drown in its tidal wave of sad seminal fluid.

Anyway, Fagburn thinks this is groundbreaking tellybox that looks at the crisis facing our noble youths in all its raw tragedy and it should get a Bafta.

Fagburn media studies course term 2 point 3.0: What would happen if you tried to pitch a programme and pointed out none of this stuff about male body worship was really that much of a problem?

But then showed loads of hot semi-naked dudes.

Presumably for the irony.

Watch it all on the BBC iPlayer machine.

Daily Telegraph: Hardcore Porn

Small print: It isn't.

Porn Block: Wank!

2014 will see the roll-out of Cameron’s Internet Filter.

Billed as blocking porn, the policy is already being used to restrict access to LGBT health and lifestyle material, child protection websites and other forms of political expression. 

This was predictable because there is no settled definition of what constitutes pornography. So it is inevitable that the material selected for ‘filtering’ is simply anything perceived to be politically sensitive or deviant. 

The move is typical of authoritarian regimes that want the power to shut down opposition and alternative voices at a moment’s notice. 

There is no underlying justification for the policy as there is no good evidence that access to sexually explicit material is harmful to individuals or society.

Laurie Penny has an important round-up in the Guardian. She notes that while governments are keen restrict information access for the general public, they claim unlimited powers to spy on the public‘s viewing habits.

Backlash.

Backlash is an umbrella organisation providing academic, legal and campaigning resources defending freedom of sexual expression. We support the rights of adults to participate in all consensual sexual activities and to watch, read and create any fictional interpretation of such in any media...

BT: You've Got A Sexuality?

Maureen Lipman of 'You've got an ology!' fame

Internet provider BT has a parental control feature which allows parents to prevent their children visiting websites which promote “gay and lesbian lifestyles”.

The information is contained on a page on BT’s website which provides information for parents on ‘blocking categories for parental control‘.

The function also allows parents to block information relating to “respect for a partner, abortion, gay and lesbian lifestyle, contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy”.

Interestingly, BT has no filter available to prevent children accessing material relating to a ‘straight lifestyle’. Nor an explanation as to what a ‘gay lifestyle’ is, nor why BT is keen to pander to the sorts of parents who wish to pretend that homosexuality is a form of deviance.

Also, what prompted the folks at BT to think “I know, let’s create a feature which allows parents to block access to sires promoting respect for their partner”?

Baffling and outrageous.

Left Foot Forward.

What fuckwittery!

Why would someone want to let their kid anywhere near a computer unless they realised it was a wonderful way of learning about... stuff?

This is where David Cameron's stupid "porn block" has got us.

The kids are letting BT know how they feel about this by tweeting @btcare.

PS Are you one of those rare bizarre and depraved young people who are interested in sex? Want to bypass Cameron's porn filter? Go here.

Censorship: No Sex Education Please, We're Filtered

www.nhs.uk

The #CensoredUK hashtag, spearheaded by the Sex and Censorship group [PornPanic], has been drawing attention to some of the unexpected sites that end up being blocked when internet providers buckle to government demands to censor "adult content".

Nine out of 10 homes will have porn filters on their computers by the end of January, after a Government deal with four big internet providers. Web giants TalkTalk, Virgin, Sky and BT, have all agreed to introduce network filters which can block inappropriate content from all the online devices within the home.

Across several mobile internet providers, however, harmless sex and relationships education sites are being blocked by their web filters. In my experience, the sexual health charity Brook, for example, has turned up on website checkers as being default blocked. But this is plainly not adult content, so why?

...I've said it many times before, and I'll keep saying it. Sexual health is not "adult content". Lumping important (and for many young people, the only) sexual health advice they will have access to in with porn is a mistake. I've always supported voluntary blocks installed by parents on a home by home basis, but phone and internet providers need to understand that doing this for everyone as a default is not their job. More to the point, politicians need to understand that making internet providers do so is not the Government's job.

There is also a concern for LGBT teens, some of whom will not have the support of their families and may have little access to safe, reliable information about sex and sexuality. What about them?

Dr Brooke Magnanti, Daily Telegraph.

Jane Fae writes on companies that are blocking gay websites.

• Sex & Censorship - On the UK Internet block-list.

Update: BBC Newsnight report on how the new ISP porn filters are not filtering some hardcore porn, but are blocking sites about sex education, domestic abuse and rape crisis helplines...

Upadte2: Gay Star News and Pink News realise this is happening after it's happened and they've been sent a press release about it saying it's happened to London Friend, saying they've been blocked by TalkTalk!

Paul Flowers: Shame! Porn! Filth!

He's also on the front page of the Daily Mail again.
Porn today - what next, farting in a public place?
Paul Flowers, you are the quarry!
See you in the morning.
x

Update...

Police raid Paul Flowers' Bradford home as part of investigation into alleged drugs offences

20 Nov 2013 01:23

Mirror: Why? Fucking ridiculous.

Mail On Sunday: Vile Newspaper Glorifies Violent Pornography

WHSmith was last night accused of profiting from the sale of vile books glorifying violent pornography, rape, incest and bestiality.
The high street chain openly advertised titles with disturbingly graphic content on its website, right next to children’s literature.
Typing the word ‘daddy’ into the search box, for instance, brings up disturbing fictional accounts of bondage and sexual humiliation, as well as collections of bedtime stories for youngsters.
After The Mail on Sunday alerted WHSmith to the appalling content freely available on its website, executives took the unprecedented decision to take the whole site offline while the explicit ebooks were removed from sale.
‘We will tighten our processes to ensure that this error can never happen again and sincerely apologise to our customers for any offence caused,’ the company said in a statement...

Mail On Sunday.

The small print is that these came from third-party sellers online - and are not illegal.
But anyway, never trust anyone who wants to ban books. 

Little parlour game: Although it's far from being a scientific test, if you search for '50 Shades Of Grey' on Mail Online, it brings up over 500 results. 

There are slightly more for stories marked  'incest'. 

Bestiality only finds 166.

And as for "All grown up" - which the Mail Online often uses with sexy photos of girls close to the age of consent... blimey!

They are also rather keen on running detailed stories about older women who've had sex with schoolboys.

Though perhaps the Daily Mail are just giving their readers what they want?

PS Mail watchers will know they've been getting very angry about the "pornification" of pop recently.

And particularly the egregious influence of 'Miley Cyrus twerking'.

This quite exact search brings up 162 results in the last six months.

With disgusting pics!

Quite a good day for the new puritans in the Anti-Sex League,

it seems.

David Blunkett: Behold His Rivers Of Blood Speech

"I think we have a job in this country, in a civilised, free, open democracy, to protect ourselves from the most bestial activities and from dangers that would undermine a civilised nation."

Drawing a parallel with Germany before the rise of the Nazis, he suggested a loose moral climate had fed the paranoia and fear that had allowed Adolf Hitler to flourish.
"In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Berlin came as near as dammit to Sodom and Gomorrah. There was a disintegration of what you might call any kind of social order.
"People fed on that - they fed people's fears of it. They encouraged their paranoia. They developed hate about people who had differences, who were minorities.
"There always has had to be some balance, in terms of the freedom of what we want to do, for ourselves and the mutual respect and the duty we owe to each other in a collective society. I think getting it right is the strength of a democracy."

Rancid reactionary homophobe David Blunkett, speaking at a Labour Party Conference fringe meeting on the evils of online pornography.
So Mr Blunkett believes the brief blossoming of gay life in Weimar Berlin brought Hitler to power?
I hope all those bestial queers the Nazis sent to concentration camps realised they only had themselves to blame.
This is the sort of "Rome fell!" "The barbarians are at the gate!" rhetoric you expect from the rabid right.
And people flip their wig when Godfrey Bloom jokes about cleaning behind the fridge.
What an utter, utter cunt!

PS Note Blunkett is using the same "This is exactly how Hitler started!" anti-reasoning beloved of the "Boycott Russia!" bozos, and is coming out with the sort of anti-gay crap that, if a Russian politician said it, they'd use to "prove" Russia is fast becoming a fascist state...

Porn Wars: Child Abuse

Broken Rainbow UK, the LGBT domestic violence charity, today joins other LGBT, sexual health, advice, education, and human rights organisations in calling for proposals for default-on web blocking to be reconsidered. Diverse organisations including Trans Media Watch, GIRES, GMFA, Schools Out, LGF, LGBT Consortium and Stonewall Housing are deeply concerned about the risks and potential for harm posed by measures ...outlined last week by the Prime Minister.

One of the key areas of concern with the proposals is over-blocking: there are already plenty of unnecessary restrictions from schools, local authorities, and libraries that do not allow people to access content that is useful, legal, and sometimes vital for people to access the support they need around issues such as sexual health, pregnancy advice, sex and relationship education. The extra filters will only worsen this access even if the Government is suggesting that there will be a “White List” of allowed sites.

Broken Rainbow is particularly worried about the harmful impact that such filters would have on lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans* people experiencing domestic violence and abuse - whether from partners or family - as for many the internet is the first or the only source of information and support.

Milena Popova, Broken Rainbow Trustee, said, "My main concern is that the proposed web filters are highly unlikely to fulfil their stated purpose. Children and young people will continue to have access to pornography while parents are lulled into a false sense of security. At the same time, young people will find it more difficult to access information they desperately need, for instance on sexual health or LGBT issues. There are better, more effective ways to protect young people, including statutory, comprehensive sex and relationships education."

Federico Podeschi, Broken Rainbow CEO, said, "Whilst we fully support initiatives that reduce risk and harm for young people, vulnerable adults, and LGBT people experiencing domestic violence and abuse, we need to ensure that more effort and investment is made to understand and consider the needs of the LGB and Trans communities. We urge the Prime Minister and the Government to reconsider this proposal and the impact it might have especially on those that have less access to appropriate and inclusive information, education, and support: this should be the focus of the proposal rather than restricting access further.”

Broken Rainbow.

Further, if you're old enough to want to watch porn, you're surely old enough to be able to see it.
Fagburn is currently lobbying the United Nations to have wanking recognised as a fundamental human right, and to have the wanking community recognised as a persecuted majority.
Might start an online petition.

PS The Independent has published the only article I've seen recently where someone admits they like watching porn and wanking.
As do 99.6% of men.
Bored of sexual shaming?
Time to stand up, be proud and shout out loud; "I'm a wanker and I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Update: Wikipedia founder brands PM's porn filters plan 'ridiculous' - BBC News.

Porn Wars: On Stupid Gestures

Microsoft's Bing search engine has become the first to introduce pop-up warnings for people in the UK who seek out online images of child abuse.

The notification will tell them the content is illegal and provide details of a counselling service.
It comes after the prime minister said internet companies needed to do more to block access to such images.

BBC News.

Well that's sexual abuse of children sorted out once and for all then.
This silly season has got so stupid - tis the age of the pointless apolitical gesture.
A bit cross about Russian homophobia?
Don't drink some (Latvian) vodka you weren't drinking anyway!
Angry about sexism on Twitter?
Don't go on Twitter for a whole day!*
That'll learn 'em.
It's a sign of how depoliticised our culture has become that NOT doing something can be seen as "campaigning".
Anyway I've started an online petition about this and hope you'll take two seconds to click on it.

PS Tomorrow I will be showing how I don't like stuff I don't like by not extracting sunbeams from cucumbers. Please join me - OR DON'T YOU CARE!!?

Update: Dana Garavelli on the flaws and fuck-ups in Cameron's anti-porn "crusade".

* A report button will not solve Twitter's misogyny problem - Jennie Rigg.

Porn Wars: A Tidal Wave Of Filth

Hilariously hysterical article in the Daily Mail by Jan Moir.

Why DO the Left sneer at Cameron's bid to block porn?
Well, I am on Cameron's side. As he said himself, it is not going to be easy. Mistakes will be made, problems abound - but we have got to start somewhere.
How on earth did it happen that a river of pornography merrily flows into every house in the country via a laptop? When did hard core become so . . . normalised? I didn't sign up to a national porn programme. Did you? 
Yet porn seepage has crept up on all of us - a rising flood water of vile and violent imagery that seemed unstoppable, until now....

Sadly, I can't think of one commentator from the left who's spoken out about this nonsense.
The Guardian - the supposed voice of the liberal left - has printed endless boring joyless prudish articles against "pornification".
Including this classic where readers who were concerned about "sexualised images in the high street" were asked to take photos and send them in - so The Guardian could reprint them.
You really could not make it up.
Ban wanking!
BAN EVERYTHING!!!

Update: Adults shouldn't be lectured about private enjoyment of porn, says Tory minister, Nicholas Boles, Telegraph.

Porn: Rots Your Brain

It is difficult not to see the sudden fit of moral indignation as containing a political element. Taking a pot shot at internet companies over this issue wrong-foots Labour – who can hardly fail to back Mr Cameron’s demand for greater state regulation, while finding their own campaign against Mr Cameron’s adviser, Lynton Crosby,  suddenly sidelined.
At same time, a war on child abuse will mollify backbench Tory MPs who still feel angry about Mr Cameron’s support for gay marriage and can reassure their constituents that the Tory party leader is now sounding the trumpet on behalf of the kind of moral crusade that they feel much more comfortable with.

The Independent - in a rare moment of clarity.
Fuck, this is getting beyond stupid.
Fagburn has no interest in lads' mags, Page 3, or straight porn, but - by jingo - I'll fight to billy-o to defend them from this beyond boring new Kulturkampf.

Can we have a look at all these backbench Tories' search-engines, please?
If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear etc etc...

'The Daily Mail has campaigned hard to make internet search engine filters “default on”. Today they can declare that campaign a success'

David Cameron, The Daily Mail, obvs.

Oh fuck this shit.

You've gotta laugh to stop from crying etc etc.