, , , , ,

An article in Salon made me feel like I had time-traveled back to the grim 50s, when books were banned and films were censored for boobs, and, well, just about anything overtly sexual: England just banned female ejaculation in porn movies.


From the Salon article (The orgasm police: Why female ejaculation is one of the last porn taboos): “As has been widely reported in recent weeks, the U.K. has instituted broad restrictions against certain acts in online streaming pornography, including female ejaculation. ‘This isn’t actually all that new,’ says Good Vibrations staff sexologist Carol Queen. ‘The UK and some other countries used to give lesbian movies with ejaculation an especially hard time at the import office.'”

The problem–which, I think you’ll agree isn’t a problem at all–is that some misguided souls think that squirting is actually urination. To which I say, so fucking what? Who cares whether it’s piss or girl cum? Don’t like porn with water play? Don’t watch it.

Turns out, the Brits have been in squirting-denial for years: “In 2001, a porn film by the name of ‘Squirt Queens’ was approved only after the name was changed to ‘British Cum Queens’ and more than six minutes of female ejaculation was scrapped. The squirting was thought to look like urolagnia, the eroticism of urination, which is banned in the U.K. Never mind that the filmmakers said it was female ejaculate, not urination. All that mattered was that it looked kinda like pee to the censors — and after consulting with experts, the British Board of Film Classification expressed skepticism that female ejaculation even existed at all.”

Of course, there’s got to be a more insidious reason for getting down on squirting–and there is, Salon reports: “There is another explanation — one with more of a cultural angle — for why female ejaculation so rankles censors. As Kristina Lloyd brilliantly wrote …, ‘The BBFC’s ban colludes with the cultural default of viewing female sexuality as intangible and precious, as if the ‘enigma of woman’ was something beyond the reach of science.’ The truth is, the science isn’t unclear on the matter: In the 2013 paper “Obscene Squirting: If the Government Thinks it’s Urine, Then They’ve Got Another Thing Coming,” [research shows that] women can ejaculate even when their bladders are empty and that ‘the chemical composition of ejaculate differs from that of urine.’ It is not, I repeat, it is not urine.”

Got that, British Board of Film Classification? (Probably not.)

A footnote: Where was the John Waters quote? Salon should have called him. Maryland film censors in the ’60s and ’70s gave him the publicity that made him into a film auteur. I’m sure he would have hilarious things to say about the British Board of Film Classification and its war on squirting.