Blog

Interesting concept where someone's wearing a mask and or gimp suit, but how will judo or MMA ever be shown on TV ever again with chokes and strangles. Assume it relates to depiction of sexual violence not sport?

Yes. Sport or movie (story driven) context will still be allowed in videos. The difference between sports and private fetish content is that consent can be checked and mainly that it's observed by a referee. Also with the right technique and setting, it's less dangerous. A good wrestler doing a precise choke isn't as dangerous as inexperienced people applying it. They want to ristrict porn because choking becomes widely accepted while actually carrying significant risks.

I broadly agree with your conclusion. Although our videos are not what politicians claim the law is targeting, laws always are applied in ways our leaders never told us they were planning on using them for.

I will note that many adult clip sites already ban strangulation, it's just that the wrestling stuff sometimes - but not always - flies under the radar. That's something a producer might go with when the worst that happens is their clip gets pulled, but when publishing it is an imprisonable offence you don't want to be relying on stuff like that.

The relevant definition of pornography is the one here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/63 (The law is different in Scotland!) Of note, it states that whether or not an image is "pornographic" is determined by the image itself (which can be a still or a video) and by the context of a series of images in which it appears. By implication, where and how an image is published is NOT relevant to deciding whether or not it's pornographic.

On the one hand, I would venture that a lot of fetish wrestling videos don't meet that definition when looking at the video by itself. On the other hand considering that producers know what they're doing and who their market is, that's not really a defence you want to be relying on.

Then, if "(b) the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person strangling or suffocating another person, and (c) a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real." it's an offence to possess or publish. My interpretation is that animation that's obviously not real cannot be an offence under this law, but good CGI can be. As far as the "realistic way" bit goes, I feel like unless it's completely obviously fake - and I'm thinking pretending to force choke somebody, or wrapping a strand of spaghetti round their neck, that level of obviously fake - then the prosecution would probably argue it's realistic enough.

Personally not a fan of restricting consenting adults sharing fights or BDSM content on an adult website, but I can at least fully understand the rest. Choking is going to be complex, though. At least a fair, sportive context should theoretically be fully legal but I highly doubt the AIs and algorithms will spare private wrestling videos just because of a consensual or sportive aspect. To an automated content filter, a sleeperhold looks exactly the same as non-consensual violence, lol. Maybe it will even affect standard martial arts channels on mainstream platforms like YouTube or Instagram. To an automated content filter, a sweaty guy in No-Gi gear or shirtless with a bare torso locking in a rear naked choke or a tight guillotine may look identical to strangulation as well. Because these AI algorithms are bad at telling context, there could be some sort of restriction wave. BJJ instructionals, MMA highlight reels, and training vlogs could also face age restrictions, or bans if they don't sterilize their footage and cut out the final taps or sleeperholds. Tech platforms will always prefer over blocking over taking a risk.

It seems to be aimed at the fetish of being choked while fucked or engaging in some sex acts, a head lock or sleeper with a focus on being aroused for pleasure is what’s being clamped down on.

It’s niche but relatively followed on here, and as usual it’s the “think of the children” brigade rather than teach children safe sex and if they are seeing it very young how are they accessing it, I saw sexual images from wank mags in a bush in the 1990s but I didn’t go out and start choking my girlfriend at the time because of it

not just children - all the idiots who can't tell reality from fantasy....oh wait, that's basically 50% of the population these days 😂

How will pro wrestling survive?

It’s not officially there to turn people on so it will be fine

Back in the 1950's and 1960's, the US Supreme Court dealt many times with the issue of obscenity vs. pornography. Having determined that pornography was protected by the First Amendment and obscenity (or hardcore pornography) was not, the Court tried to formulate definitions so that lower courts, legislative branches, and the people could distinguish between the two. The first concrete distinction - or so the Court felt - was that something obscene had "no redeeming social value." Needless to say, the Court's attempt was a failure. (One justice predicted it: google "Justice Stewart I know it when I see it.") In short order, our great pornographers added accurate medical or health information in their products - even in doctor and nurse outfits - or images of great works of art, or used classical music in the background, etc. so that the output had some redeeming social value. The Court spent years having a weekly or bi-monthly "movie day" in the basement screening room to judge whether a film had redeeming social value. In 1973, the Court gave up and thus we now have the "community standards" test and regulation of who and when can be in and obtain.

So I wish the regulators and enforcers good luck with their "officially turning people on" test.

It will be a simple is it X rated value and boom done it’s banned

We are rapidly approaching the dystopian future that was so well written by George Orwell called "1984". In his world their were what you would call Thought Police, where it became a crime to even think about sex, the same can be done with violent acts. NOW with the advent of AI and the online tracking of everything we say, type, watch, or do on our computers, cellphones, TV's AND being stored in the cloud, and Data Centers it will be easy for the authorities that be, to prosecute and convict anyone for anything they deem "illegal". What a wonderful world it will be, (sarcasm) when we all become totally CONTROLLED. This is something we all need to think hard about, but it's probably FAR too late.

This is the usual State overreach into every tiny aspect of everyone's lives that has to be micro-managed,.The dead hand of the State in action once again where almost everything is "banned", "restricted" "licensed" or "monitored". Jeez, even a wank will require a licence soon, to be monitored and patrolled by, guess who.....yep, that's correct, wankers.

The legislation is prompted by young girls being forced to wear choke chains, we should be supporting the legislation not turning it into something it isn’t. Any man who intimidates a girl or another guy into subservient behaviour forcing them to wear chains normally used on dogs is a pussy. Get them on the mats, show them what a choke is. Gay wrestlers of the world unite. Protect our sisters.

Since we’re all gay here and on a fetish site I don’t think Jay chokes Max while riding his cock will do much for grooming gangs and young lads dangerously out of kilter with young women