The ‘Porn Laws’ in the UK seem a bit of a joke at first glance, but in reality, this unnecessary oppression represents something far worse.
UK-based porn star, Harriet Sugarcookie, explains why she thinks these new laws could be very bad for us a nation.
‘Face-sitting’ and ‘female ejaculation’ were banned last year and there are plans to ban more sexual activity that the government believes is ‘inappropriate.’
The ‘modern porn star,’ believes that the government are branding all pornographic content and activity ‘harmful,’ which is their biggest ‘push’ for banning certain sexual choices and material, completely.
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Karen Bradley said:
The government is committed to keeping children safe from harmful pornographic content online and that is exactly what we are doing.
Only adults should be allowed to view such content.
Harriet believes that essentially, the government are selecting what people can and can’t watch.
She wrote:
What she doesn’t go on to say is,’However we, the government, will decide what content adults are allowed to view!’
The ’21st century porn star,’ claims there is much more to the government’s laws than ‘protecting children.’ She says it is, ‘telling grown adults what material they are allowed and not allowed to view.’
In effect, websites that don’t meet these new ‘porn regulations,’ will be banned, so UK viewers will be breaking the law if they are to access them.
The self-confessed ‘nerd’ and sex obsessive, questions whether the material is banned because the activities themselves are illegal.
She answers her own question by saying, ‘well, no, they’re perfectly normal, natural things that happen to people during intercourse.’
London-based Harriet comes down hard on the banning of female ejaculation, as she sees it as ‘undermining’ of women and sending the message that the government will not allow ‘female pleasure being shown.’ Interesting.
She comes to the conclusion that the acts themselves are not illegal and if performed between two consenting adults then it’s got nothing to do with the government.
She goes onto discuss the amount of fingers that are now ‘allowed’ to be used in fingering, as the government have reduced it to four.
She writes:
If that sounds silly, it’s because it is.
Her next point about allowing the government to pass these laws in the first place is very poignant.
She writes:
But because the subject is pornography, because the rules seem small and silly, it’s easy to get it into law. People will read the articles, shake their heads, mutter than our government are prudes, then proceed to do nothing. Proceed to let them start censoring the material we are allowed to view online.
The question she raises here is ‘what counts as adult content?’ which I think is a very good question.
According to the porn star, suicide helplines have been blocked on the internet and the NHS site, for having ‘vagina’ and ‘nipple’ written on their pages. Ludicrous.
The porn star remarks on how the government might go about regulating porn users, as you’d think they wouldn’t be able to watch us online anyway?
Wrong. A new bill has been passed that records your browser history, which is beyond terrifying and highly intrusive. What’s worse, the porn star claims the bill ‘gives secret service agencies the right to hack into your computer.’ Which is a highly disturbing thought.
She ends on an ominous note, wondering where the line lies in the future, once we have given the government the right to freely block content they deem ‘morally unacceptable’ and access to our browser history without consent.
Very worrying and certainly food for thought…
