If you’re a fan of squirting, British pornography isn’t for you.

Nine sex acts in porn were quietly banned in the UK earlier this month by the BBFC and the government’s Department of Culture, Media, and Sport. Of particular note, female ejaculation was amongst those prohibited deeds in what appears to be a list aimed specifically at women and LGBT individuals.

Looking at female ejaculation specifically, I have tried to comprehend how something so natural, harmless and inoffensive is worthy of censorship. This is not censorship in terms of advising television productions (“perhaps don’t show a woman squirting in the afternoon soap opera!”) but banned from porn. Yes, porn: Exactly the sort of place you would expect to see, you know, a female orgasm of all things.

The news was so absurd, I originally thought the story was satire. Regretfully, it is not.

Naturally, a lot of people are hurt and upset about this censorship, myself included, which is why I attended a “face-sitting” protest outside the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, London last Friday.

Attending the protest, it was clear just how many people’s lives this ban is affecting. I spoke to independent porn producers who have had to practically halt their business and porn stars whose bookings have all been cancelled due to these so-called “safety measures.”

The irony? These small, independent businesses are easily identified and viewers can check the ethics and consent of the films produced. But by removing this accessibility, viewers who still wish to seek depictions of certain sex acts may find themselves sourcing them from dubious outlets with no reassurance of the ethics of the producers or the safety of the actors.

This is dangerous, not the acts themselves, and conflicts greatly with the “safety” excuse provided by a spokesperson for the BBFC, who claimed the need for the censorship was because the clearly labelled hard-core pornography was “regarded as harmful for minors.” This reasoning is doubly dubious given the age constraints already in place in order to purchase either hard copy or Video on Demand pornography.

But let’s for a moment seriously consider the argument that the ban is about reducing physical harm (in which case, acts such as “spanking” and “physical abuse” have a least a morsel of applicable grounds…if you ignore the fact that they would occur between two or more consenting adults).

This argument simply cannot be applied to female ejaculation, because it is in no way, shape or form harmful. In fact, the portrayal of “real” sex and the attuning to female pleasure in the porn industry can only amount to greater things.

This is sexism in its purest form. This becomes all the more evident when you consider bukkake scenes (wherein several men climax onto a woman’s face, their sexual fluids left uncensored )and questionable coercion scenes are still permitted. Likewise, “face-sitting” was banned, while fellatio (a direct outlet of male pleasure) was not.  Many protestors rightly complained that one could “just as easily choke on a cock” as one could “suffocate on a c**t.” But logic doesn’t seem to matter.

Let’s be clear: Neither female ejaculation nor cunnilingus or face-sitting is “harmful.” What is harmful is the consistent portrayals of aggressive, heteronormative male sexuality and censorship female sexual pleasure. This double standard only furthers the notion that women are objects for male consumption and not sexual beings in their own rights.

If we are going to censor something, let’s censor sexism. Let us not censor the benign image of the female orgasm.

It’s tiresome fighting for equal sexual representation in the media, especially when you are fighting your government for it. But, as a fellow demonstrator told me before her partner sat on her face, “we’ll take this lying down!”

Categories: POP

Tags: face-sitting, female ejaculation, porn, pornography, protest, U.K., United Kingdom