Porn in A Place Where Sitting On Someone’s Face is Illegal

by Lynsey G

A night-vision camera blurs across a nondescript outdoor space where a car is parked, the video picking up just as the door is opened. Inside sits a young blonde woman, her lacy bra pulled down to reveal her breasts and her tight skirt hiked up to reveal similarly lacy panties. In the camera’s green glow, she lazily exits the car, showing off her body to several men who have gathered around and who are openly masturbating. One appears much older; another appears to be wearing sweat pants. The cameraman, amazed at what he’s seeing, whispers breathlessly, “She’s a real shower, this girl.” The men clumsily take turns having sex with her for the next 23 minutes — standing up beside the car, on the ground next to the car and directly on top of the hood of the car (its license plate in full view).

The video has more than a million views on PornHub, where if you type “U.K.” into the search bar, “amateur” and “dogging” are the top two autofill options. It’s a prime example of both categories, which when placed together constitute one of the most popular forms of U.K.-produced porn today.

https://melmagazine.com/media/371302a1ceffaed0e28e2111ca5ed32b?postId=6aad2528583

Dogging, though not well-known in the U.S., is a subcultural sexual phenomenon throughout the U.K. It essentially consists of people gathering to have sex in or around their parked cars or outdoors in parks. It’s been a favorite pastime for exhibitionists and swingers for decades; it’s also proven popular with BBC radio announcers and at least one football star. Dogging occurs in spots well-known to dogging enthusiasts — and often, to chagrined members of their local communities — in roadside parking areas. They typically arrange encounters online beforehand, though part of the excitement of dogging is having sex with strangers, so most participants keep the pre-sex communication to a minimum. It’s always incorporated an element of voyeurism; nonparticipants are usually welcome to watch, and often to film, as a number of men engage in sex with one woman who makes herself available to them.

Its rampant popularity on PornHub is the culmination of a long history of the British porn industry making the best of a bad situation, and it speaks volumes about the current state of pornography in Great Britain. “The problem with the [British porn] industry today is that it still has this legacy of amateurism associated with it because it’s been clandestine,” says Oliver Carter, a senior lecturer in media and cultural theory at Birmingham City University. The history of sexual media in Great Britain goes back centuries, but he says, “It was illegal to distribute pornography in the U.K. — okay to make, but illegal to distribute — until the late 1990s. So you had production, but it was mainly for export.”

Specifically, non-explicit “glamour films” were produced as early as the 1940s and shipped to mainland Europe and the U.S. Hardcore material also was filmed, with notable outlaws like John Lindsay in the 1970s and Michael Freeman in the 1980s distributing their films illegally and on a small scale domestically. It wasn’t until 2000, however, that the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), the U.K.’s equivalent of the MPAA, updated its policies to catch up to the imported porn that was entering the country from elsewhere in the world. As such, the BBFC instituted a new classification — R18, which is roughly analogous to our X rating, with the notable difference being that while the Crown must classify every explicit film to be sold on film or DVD in the U.K., the X rating isn’t trademarked or overseen by the MPAA, so American pornographers can apply the X rating if they want, but it isn’t required…

more…

https://melmagazine.com/porn-in-a-place-where-sitting-on-someones-face-illegal-6aad2528583

WIKK WEB GURU

What Jesus, Judas and Nutella can tell us about women’s bodies

‘A ludicrously charismatic presence’: Lucy McCormick in Triple Threat. Photograph: Tamsin Drury

by Deborah Orr

Lucy McCormick’s taboo-busting show depicts religion as a female-marginalising death cult – and does it hilariously. Though some feminists may find it difficult

It’s rare to see a truly avant garde performer – one so effortlessly boundary-busting that you can hardly believe your eyes and ears – who is also at home in the mainstream. It’s also rare when the performer is hilarious. But Lucy McCormick is one such artist. Her show Triple Threat (the theatrical term, I’m reliably informed, for a performance that involves singing, dancing and acting) has to be seen to be believed. In fact, I’m not quite sure I believe it even now.

The show started out on the queer circuit, where McCormick was known as part of the performance company Get in the Back of the Van, which describes itself as “playing with glory, endurance, artifice and the banal”. But despite its radical content, Triple Threat made its transition to the general audience without causing controversy. It was a huge hit at last year’s Edinburgh festival fringe, and is now coming to the end of a successful run at the Soho Theatre, in London. “I’ll shout So!” McCormick tells the audience at the start. “And you shout Ho!” All good, transgressive fun.

Triple Threat is McCormick’s retelling of the New Testament – which she feels, with some justification, has until now been lacking in “strong roles for women”. McCormick plays pretty much all the roles, Christ with particular relish. She is ably assisted by two scantily clad lovelies, who spend a lot of their time looking humiliated and resentful: which is, of course, extremely amusing, because that’s how people cast in such roles really ought to look, although these two only get away with it because they’re men.

Triple Threat has a certain amount in common with Jerry Springer: The Opera, the musical written by Richard Thomas and Stewart Lee. The show was widely condemned for its irreverence towards Christianity and its general profanity. One suspects Triple Threat hasn’t attracted similar disapprobation simply because it’s playing on small stages, with small budgets, and none of the people who would be horrified have realised it exists. Which is sad, because they’re exactly the sort of people who have the most to learn from seeing it.

McCormick is a ludicrously charismatic presence, singing, dancing and acting with prodigious power and skill. It’s her material as well – the satire, the gags, the intelligence, the insight, the complex, perfect pitch and tone. McCormick is absurdly talented.

She tackles gender roles by re-enacting the nativity from Christ’s point of view, slithering in a tight bodysuit through a cervical passage formed by her two-man Girl Squad’s arms – breasts and pubis casually coming in and out of view as if they were like any other parts of her body – which, of course, they clearly are, in the context McCormick has created.

Let’s just say that the surprises keep coming. The listings magazine Time Out described the show as “joyously depraved”. The three kings scene has the trio and some of the audience caked (due to budget constraints) in Gold Blend, frankfurters and meringue; and an extended snogging scene between Jesus and Judas somehow conspires to leave McCormick’s face slathered disgustingly with Nutella left over from the temptation of Christ in the desert.

Among the many power ballads lustily belted out with untampered lyrics fitting the Christ story perfectly, the enlistment of the Bryan Adams hit (Everything I Do) I Do It for You to communicate the crucifixion scene is particularly pleasing.

The doubting Thomas scene is the transgressive peak of the show, and features the investigation of all of the orifices of Jesus for proof that he is risen, not just the nail holes in his hands. By that point, however, the audience is merely delighted to discover that it can still be shocked. A bit. Although full “what the hell just happened?” astonishment does set in within minutes of stumbling dazed out of the theatre…

more…

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/22/lucy-mccormick-triple-threat-jesus-judas-nutella-feminist-difficulty

WIKK WEB GURU

THE EUROPEAN ASSAULT ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH

BY PAUL COLEMAN
WRITER AND LAWYER

Both the EU and post-EU Britain are throttling the liberty to think.

Hhead of spiked’s conference in central London next Wednesday – ‘Enemies of the State: Religious Freedom and the New Repression’ – Paul Coleman asks if Britain outside of the EU will be any more respectful of freedom of thought and speech.

It has been argued that Brexit will make us freer. Not just in an economic or political sense, but also in terms of individual civil liberties. spiked’s Mick Hume wrote that ‘the referendum result is a triumph for free speech and a smack in the eye for the culture of You Can’t Say That’. And it is.

Post-Brexit Britain will no longer be bound by an EU Code of Conduct that seeks to police the online speech of over 500million citizens and ban ‘illegal online hate speech’. Or an EU law that encourages the criminalisation of ‘insult’. Or a proposed EU law that undermines fundamental freedoms by purging Europe of every last shred of supposed ‘discrimination’.

We can distinguish ourselves from our European neighbours that are intent on pursuing more and more censorship. Just over the summer it was reported that prosecutors in Spain initiated criminal proceedings against the Archbishop of Valencia for preaching a homily alleged to have been ‘sexist’ and ‘homophobic’. In the Netherlands, a man was sentenced to 30 days in prison for ‘intentionally insulting’ the king on Facebook. And in Germany a prosecution was launched against a comedian who made jokes against Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

These kinds of cases have become normal on the continent. So much so that they barely generate news. And they are often willingly cheered on by the EU and other European institutions. Britain can tread a different path.

There is just one, small problem: when it comes to censorship and the quashing of civil liberties, the UK doesn’t need any encouragement from the EU, or anybody else.

Take the issue of free speech. In Britain there are countless attacks on this fundamental freedom that have little or no connection to EU law. Evangelical street preachers are routinely arrested for public preaching; peaceful campaigners have been prosecuted for holding allegedly insulting signs; and the police have started labelling wolf-whistling a ‘hate crime’. None of this was EU-mandated.

Or take the issue of conscience. Elderly guesthouse-owners have been sued for daring to operate a room policy that corresponds to their deeply held convictions on marriage. Printers have been sued for refusing to print messages that they profoundly disagree with. And of course there is Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland, sued by an arm of the state, the ironically named Equality Commission, because its owners could not in good conscience ice a cake with the slogan ‘Support Gay Marriage’.

Again, all these examples stem from British legislation that is not EU-mandated, and which actually goes well beyond the censorship that exists in many other European countries.

True, these examples are all connected to existing laws. Perhaps the new post-Brexit Britain will be a bastion of freedom going into the future. But again there’s a problem, because the biggest challenge to civil liberties in Britain today comes directly from the prime minister, Theresa May, and the legislation her government is proposing…

more…

http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/the-european-assault-on-freedom-of-speech#.WKBIEVWLSUk

WIKK WEB GURU

50% All New UK Homes In Next 5 Yrs Go To Muslims

One new home will need to be built every five minutes to house Britain’s burgeoning migrant population, it has been revealed

• Britain will need to accommodate 243,000 new households each year
• Net ­migration accounts for an estimated 45 per cent of this growth
• 109,000 extra homes will be needed every year by migrants and their families 

By Mail Online Reporter

Almost half of new homes built in the next five years will go to migrants, government figures have revealed.

Soaring immigration means that Britain will need to accommodate as many as 243,000 new households each year for the next 22 years, the Department for Communities and Local Government has said.

It is been estimated that an extra 5.3 million new properties could be needed to meet the growth in population, and an extra 2.4 million of the new homes will be needed for migrants alone.

This means that one new home needs to be built every five minutes to house Britain’s burgeoning migrant population. 

The group claims that as a conservative estimate, 300 homes a day will need to be built each day just to house the new arrivals, the Sunday Express reports.

Addressing the House of Lords, Lord Green said: ‘To put the point slightly more dramatically, that would mean building a new home every five minutes night and day, for new arrivals until such a time as we can get those numbers down.

‘I know there is a strong view in the House that there is a lot to be said for migration. All I am pointing out is that there are also costs.’

However, the estimates are based on projections of popular growth from 2014, which does not take into account Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, which is expected to reduce net migration by ending free movement.

But Migration Watch claims that the most recent projections are lower than actual net migration numbers, meaning housing demand from migrants has been underplayed.

It was also revealed that new immigration controls will have to be phased in after Brexit takes place raising fears it could take years for the number of new arrivals to fall.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4192506/UK-needs-new-home-five-minutes-house-migrants.html#ixzz4XuQA7LSo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

WIKK WEB GURU

The Elaborate Wig-Snatching Schemes of the 18th Century

Wig-wearing socialites: beware of hidden boys, monkeys, and thieving men on horses. HISTORICAL PICTURE ARCHIVE/GETTY IMAGES

Thieves employed monkeys to rob the wealthy of their coiffures.

By Lauren Young

In 18th-century England, it was best to be wary of any hands that reached too close to your hair. They could belong to a wig snatcher.

The 1776 engraving above depicts one of the carefully plotted hair heists. A wealthy woman walks along a high orchard wall in the latest fashion—an enormous headdress wig trimmed with lavish lace and ribbons. Suddenly, the intricately combed and curled set of hair is lifted from her head by a monkey perched on the wall, revealing her bare head.

Socialites had to be extra cautious of wig snatchers. Throughout England and Europe, finely powdered perukes, also called periwigs, were in vogue among royal courts and the upper class. The more ornate and towering your wig, the higher your social standing. The expensive and easily removable headpieces led to a series of wig thefts: surprisingly elaborate and creative robberies involving animals, long poles, and young boys hauled on the shoulders of impostor butchers.

Stolen wigs, large and small, could be sold for a pretty penny. WELLCOME LIBRARY/CC BY 4.0

One of the most successful wig-stealing schemes involved concealing young boys in baskets and under blankets, according to William Andrews, author of the 1904 book At the Sign of the Barber’s Pole. In an episode in England, a boy rode in a butcher’s tray carried on the shoulder of a tall man. As the pair walked passed a victim, the boy twisted the periwig off the head and the man would take off in the opposite direction, leaving the confused owner clutching at his or her now bald head.

The same tactic would be used with boys hidden in baskets held by wig stealers, writes Robert Norman in The Woman Who Lost Her Skin (and Other Dermatological Tales).

An illustration of one of the most successful wig thieving techniques, featured in At the Sign of the Barber’s Pole. PUBLIC DOMAIN

In addition to using monkeys, wig thieves also employed dogs. One boy would harass a finely dressed, bewigged gentleman as another seized the hair and toss it to a dog, explains Margaret Visser in The Way We Are: What Everyday Objects and Conventions Tell Us About Ourselves. All three would split down different alleys and later meet up to celebrate their plunder. Meanwhile, the bald victim would often be more concerned about covering his head and pride than running after the thieves, Visser writes.

In this heist, one woman thrusts a fish into the face of a dandy, while another woman in a window cuts his peruke. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS/PUBLIC DOMAIN

The social elite in both France and England also had to beware of the highwaymen who roamed country roads. Thieves known as “chiving lays” would lurk behind hackney coaches, which were forced to roll slowly down narrow and poorly paved streets, and slice the back of the carriage to snatch a wig from the passenger’s head, explains Geri Walton. Highwaymen riding on horses would also target coaches, stealing wigs and quickly riding off.

Highwaymen targeted carriages of upper class citizens to steal wigs. PUBLIC DOMAIN

In one heist, highwayman John Everett had an interesting means to obtain a better wig—he forced a man to trade. Fiona McDonald notes in Gentlemen Rogues and Wicked Ladies:

Enjoying This Story?

Get our latest, delivered straight to your inbox by subscribing to our newsletter.

“Everett fancied a bob wig that sat atop the head of a Quaker seated in a coach with a number of other passengers. Everett pulled it off the man’s head and swapped it with his own second-hand tie wig (which he had bought, not stolen). The tie wig made the man look like a comical devil and the rest of the coach party burst out laughing. The robbery ended with all parties going their separate ways without any hard feelings (except perhaps from the Quaker).”

Everett was arrested shortly after this robbery, and was detained in prison for three years. However, many wig thieves often got away without punishment. For example, Christopher Matthews was accused of stealing a valuable wig in 1716, reports indicating that there was little doubt he had committed the crime. But the chief prosecution witness strangely did not come to his trial, and the jury were “oblig’d to acquit him,” explains Gregory Durston in Whores and Highwaymen: Crime and Justice in the Eighteenth-Century Metropolis. It’s implied that Matthews may have been involved in witness’s attendance.

In England, only 4.3 percent of all types of theft cases were brought to the Old Bailey during the 18th century, and 70 percent of those accused were found not guilty…

more…

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-elaborate-wigsnatching-schemes-of-the-18th-century

WIKK WEB GURU

University students demand philosophers such as Plato and Kant are removed from syllabus because they are white

SOAS’s student union is insisting that ‘the majority of philosophers on our courses’ should be from Africa and Asia

by Camilla Turner, education editor

They are said to be the founding fathers of Western philosophy, whose ideas underpin civilised society.

But students at a prestigious London university are demanding that figures such as Plato, Descartes and Immanuel Kant should be largely dropped from the curriculum because they are white.

The student union at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) insists that when studying philosophy “the majority of philosophers on our courses” should be from Africa and Asia.

Voltaire: SOAS student union says the ‘colonial context in which so-called “Enlightenment” philosophers wrote within’ should be taught CREDIT: MEDIA MOGUL

The union said it is part of wider campaign to “decolonise” the university, as it seeks to “address the structural and epistemological legacy of colonialism”.

It comes after education leaders warned that universities will be forced to pander to the demands of “snowflake” students, however unreasonable they might be.

Under proposed reforms to higher education, the Government wants to place student satisfaction at the heart of a new ranking system, but critics fear it could undermine academic integrity.

Jo Johnson is championing the controversial Higher Education and Research Bill

Sir Roger Scruton, the philosopher, said the demands suggest “ignorance”. “You can’t rule out a whole area of intellectual endeavour without having investigated it and clearly they haven’t investigated what they mean by white philosophy,” he told The Mail on Sunday.

“If they think there is a colonial context from which Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason arose, I would like to hear it.’

Sir Anthony Seldon, vice-chancellor of Buckingham University, added: “There is a real danger political correctness is getting out of control. We need to understand the world as it was and not to rewrite history as some might like it to have been.”

I would firmly resist dropping philosophers or historians just because it was fashionableHead of SOAS’s Religions and Philosophies department Erica Hunter

The student union at SOAS, a leading centre for the study of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, stated that “decolonising” the university and “confronting the white institution” is one of its priorities for the academic year.

It said that “white philosophers” should be studied only “if required”, adding that their work should be taught solely from a “critical standpoint”. “For example, acknowledging the colonial context in which so-called ‘Enlightenment’ philosophers wrote within,” it added.

Erica Hunter, head of SOAS’s Religions and Philosophies department, said the union’s viewpoint was “rather ridiculous”, adding: “I would firmly resist dropping philosophers or historians just because it was fashionable.”

Dr Deborah Johnston, Pro-Director (Learning and Teaching), said: “One of the great strengths of SOAS is that we have always looked at world issues from the perspective of the regions we study – Asia, Africa & Middle East.

“Informed and critical debate and discussion about the curriculum we teach is a healthy and proper part of the academic enterprise.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/01/08/university-students-demand-philosophers-including-plato-kant/

WIKK WEB GURU

Military Training More Traumatizing Than War, Say British Army Veterans

 

 By admin

Military training may do more psychological damage than war itself, particularly to the British Army’s child recruits, a veterans’ group claims.

A group of former military personnel will hand a letter to the Ministry of Defense (MoD) on Monday, calling for an end to what it sees as the brutalizing recruitment and training of 16 and 17-year-olds. The delivery of the letter coincides with the release of a video testimony by soldiers themselves.

The group claims in its letter that as “veterans of every conflict in which this country has been involved since the Second World War” they have seen that “16 and 17-year-olds are too young to be recruited and trained for war.”

“We have been through military training; it is a brutal form of psychological conditioning designed to fundamentally alter the way your mind works, leaving the army in control of what you value and how you react,” the group said.

“These values and reactions are very difficult to switch off and cause all sorts of problems later on in civilian life. No other country in Europe subjects 16-year-olds to this process, it’s time this country caught up.”

The campaign is being fronted by Veterans for Peace UK (VFPUK) in conjunction with the human rights NGO Child Soldiers International.

The testimony comes in the form of short video interviews, including former child recruit Wayne Sharrocks, who joined the army at 17 before serving in Afghanistan as part of the Rifles infantry unit and the Special Forces Support Group (SFSG).

He witnessed his colleagues being maimed by hidden bombs and was himself badly wounded by an improvised explosive device (IED).

He and others cover topics like recruiting, training and the reality of killing in war.

However, despite his wartime trials, Sharrocks said that training itself can cause lasting mental damage by creating “an insane amount of aggression” which cannot simply be “switched off.”

“You’re crawling through mud and [are] screamed at, kicked, punched while you’re on the floor, anything to get you angry… enough to stab another man on the flick of a switch. For a young person at 16 that’s pretty traumatic.”

Sharrocks also said that rather than the advertised sense of camaraderie, it is a “gang mentality” that the military aims to instill – which can have serious negative effects on internal culture.

“You either conform, or you don’t and you’re separated from the pack and you’re going to be preyed on. So you can either be the person that’s preying on people or the person that’s preyed on, it’s like survival of the fittest, basically,” he said.

“So these people that aren’t the fittest or mentally the fittest, they’re going to get preyed on and people are going to take advantage of that.”

The military has long maintained that recruiting under-18s is a good way to provide skills and training which benefit the majority of recruits in the long term.

Via RT. This piece was reprinted by RINF Alternative News with permission or license.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/newswire/military-training-more-traumatizing-than-war-say-british-army-veterans/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RinfAlternativeNewsMediaDailyBreakingNews+%28RINF+Alternative+News+Media%3A+Daily+Breaking+News%29

WIKK WEB GURU