Is it just me, or is there a severe lack of quality hardcore porn with girls in UK-style school uniform?
There must be a huge market for it (here in the UK at least) - for me nothing is sexier than the sight of a girl dressed up this way, and almost every weekend the streets will be packed with clubbers dressed up like fantasy schoolgirl fucks for these school disco things - yet the amount of available quality strokable material seems miniscule. I'm looking for the sort of hardcore anal pounding and production qualities you get in US porn, but inievitably their teenage titles tend to feature girls in their own style college outfits, and most UK home produced porn is either very weak strength wise or amatuerishly made.
Where can I find hot British schoolgirl ass action?
I wonder if there is much appetite for producing or consuming it. It seems that almost every week there is a shock horror news story about child sex abuse - with a recurrent theme being child porn via the Internet. I think this makes people feel uneasy about a masturbation aid that features girls in school uniforms. The balance of on screen nudity in mainstream media has been shifted from female to male nudity for yonks. I can distantly remember Barry Norman on a BBC TV film review programme that he hardly recognised any mainstream actresses with their clothes on. How things have changed.
In the recent BBC drama The Rotters Club about sixth formers growing up in the seventies, one of the male leads was shown nude on screen having sex with an older woman. I somehow cannot imagine the reverse being shown.
I think clubbers dressed as schoolies or venues like School Dinners are different as it's sexy silliness as a group activity. I think "hardcore porn with girls in UK-style school uniform " may cross a line and in the present climate for many people may call to mind an image of a sinister individual feeding an obsession with young girls. This is all just my personal opinion, I do not wish to cause offence, or stifle debate on an open minded discussion forum such as this.
I'm not really sure why hardcore porn with girls in white shirts, short red plaid skirts and white knee socks is acceptable (US schoolgirl outfits) but UK school uniforms would not be (basically swap the plaid skirt for a navy blue one).
The girls are over 18 and it is fantasy.
You may want to check out Extreme Teen 36 that has girls in navy blue gymslips.
Hmmm - well obviously if there are the likes of School Dinners and School Disco etc etc it stands to reason there must be some demand for material of this nature, when I see girls tottering around in school uniform and stillettos every wekend I fail to see how it cannot be a sexual fetish in action, (every week I have about 200 girls walk past my place of work dressed like this:
,but as for producers afraid to make it you may well be right.
Well - the BBFC is a joke anyway, so Im really looking for material that circumvents those sad old prudes who tell us what we can and cant watch - hell, even a lot of mainstream hardcore r18 titles are cencored in the UK! - so I guess that would be either websites or foreign producers - which given as its a UK fetish isnt very likely, I know. :(
Maybe I'll just have to hold out for some US/European company to do a UK Special? (Rocco did some good British titles a few years ago with When Rocco Met Kelly/Rocco More than Ever)
Edited by - loz on 3/24/2005 5:05:34 PM
Edited by - loz on 3/24/2005 5:25:01 PM
(edited to make link. Guideline: embed thumbnails, link to larger pictures. )
Edited by - DenverDon on 3/24/2005 5:29:37 PM
[Link]
Ivor Biggun Deactivated User
99 Posts 6/04
Posted - Mar 25 2005 : 7:03AM
If the BBFC used that excuse to ban it, it would be on pretty shaky ground. If her birthday is early in the school year, a girl may be 16 for most of her final year of compulsory schooling. It's perfectly legal in the UK for an adult man to fuck or even sodomise a consenting girl of that age. What's more, many schools these days still require uniform for sixth formers (especially posh Grammar Schools), so some girls could be in school uniform for almost three years after they are legal to fuck, and for the last year of that they could legally star in porno.
I'd like to see that - a porno featuring a real schoolgirl in her actual uniform .
[Link]
Ivor Biggun Deactivated User
99 Posts 6/04
Posted - Mar 25 2005 : 7:12AM
Some years back when I was a builder, a group of us went to School Dinners for our Xmas do. Mike the plumber, who organised the whole event, disappeared for a while with one of the girls. When they returned, she had a £50 note tucked in her stocking and he had a big smile on his face. He didn't let on exactly what he got for that, but you can bet it was more than "sexy silliness".
Sounds like shakey ground to me as well. The UK allows publication of a range of spanking magazines (Janus for example) in which the majority of girls are dressed in full school uniform. OK - its not hardcore fucking, but the fantasy is still there.
Yes, its very annoying that was is available seems to be spanking fetish stuff, which doesnt interest me at all. I ust want good hardcore british schoolgirl fucking. Oh well, guess I'll have to make it myself...
I think that to a some people in the UK it is not acceptable that some men like to fantasise about having sex with schoolgirls. A small percentage of those men may eventually act out their fantasy. Video of men having sex with girls in school uniform may escalate a potential sex offender's behaviour a level closer to acting out their fantasy. The sickness may be in that individual rather than the porn he is watching but we can only legally access porn that is deemed acceptable by the majority of the population, as represented by the regulatory authorities. Across the whole spectrum of government that system works well, as the UK is a great place to live.
An individual working for School Dinners giving you a blowjob [or whatever] for £50 is not the same as School Dinners being in the business of selling blowjobs. Similarly, girls out on the razzle dressed as schoolies are acting as invididuals out for fun, not selling actual sex as a business. Nor do either of these examples involve the production and distribution of media to allow actual sex to be experienced second hand by third parties.
Hardcore British "schoolgirl" porn would industrialise the distribution of depictions of actual sex acts apparently involving schoolgirls to any number of essentially anonymous third parties.
[By "industrialise" I mean the use of factors of production and marketing and distribution].
All, IMHO, as they say.
[Link]
Ivor Biggun Deactivated User
99 Posts 6/04
Posted - Mar 25 2005 : 11:52AM
But, as I already pointed out, It's perfectly legal to fuck a schoolgirl over the age of 16. How can a guy with a schoolgirl fetish be deemed a "potential sex offender" when he could act out his fantasy perfectly legally?The BBFC makes some wacky decisions and may follow this sort of twisted logic, but it doesn't stand up to reason. Sex laws should not be made purely on what the majority consider "acceptable", they have to allow for personal liberty too. Isn't that the whole point of having an age of consent - to set a point where society has decided that you are old enough to choose for yourself and not be bound by what others may think?
If he has sex with a schoolgirl he may not check that she is 16 or over before doing so. His fantasy may be to have sex with a schoolgirl who is under 16.The BBFC makes some wacky decisions and may follow this sort of twisted logic, but it doesn't stand up to reason.
Click to expand
In my opinion it is an entirely reasonable point of view. It's just not the same as yours.
Individual freedoms are reasonable only in so far as they do not take away the freedom of others. It is a matter of judgement to resolve any conflict between the two. There are no absolutes and different people will have differing opinons, all of which may be reasonable.
Edited by - neophyte on 3/25/2005 12:32:30 PM
[Link]
Ivor Biggun Deactivated User
99 Posts 6/04
Posted - Mar 25 2005 : 12:53PM
And here's where the logic falls flat on it's face, where you extend the argument into what you believe the viewer may be thinking.
This could be used to ban all porn - the viewers may be fantasizing about rape.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Mar 25 2005 : 1:50PM
On topic, I vaguely remember a Ben Dover scene with a girl dressed up in a British schoolgirl uniform. One of the earlier ones.
lee_carver said: "The last time my ship was in Australia the local paper wrote an article when we closed down a brothel due to over working the girls."
And you've misapplied that doctrine. It applies to when a crime has been commited, ie did the accused intend to kill the victim? It's completely irrelevant to your arguments about porn censorship on the basis of what the viewer may be thinking.You're mixing your arguments. We already established that having sex with a schoolgirl is not necessarily illegal. Rape is always illegal.
I was making an example of what you have been doing - taking a depiction of what could be perfectly legal activity and making the assumption of illegal desires on the part of the viewer.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Mar 25 2005 : 4:07PM
Rape and depicting rape are not the same.Are you sure it is that what you were saying? I didn't understand it that way at all. Must be me, I'm sure.
Here is what you wrote: "There are no absolutes and different people will have differing opinons, all of which may be reasonable." As to my confusion, let me break this sentence down in 3 parts:
1)There are no absolutes... That's debatable at least.
2) ... different people will have differing opinons... Agreed.
3) ... all of which may be reasonable. 'All'? Really?
I have no idea. I'm not British. IIRC, it was one of the really early Ben Dover videos, which were released in Germany by a company called Sculpture under the series title Ben Dover: Pure Cheek (volumes 1 till 27 or so were relased), long before they were picked up and repackaged by VCA for their American release and long before the R18 qualification in England even existed. The Sculpture videos even had an explicit statement at the beginning that they were not to be sold in England, or something to that effect.
Harri Patel said: "I was wondering, based on a mention in another thread, if we might end up seeing the ass perched on the seat of a dirtbike (I'm talking about Heaven, not Sir Noel Plum)"
Edited by - Walter Burns on 3/25/2005 4:07:24 PM
[Link]
Ivor Biggun Deactivated User
99 Posts 6/04
Posted - Mar 25 2005 : 5:01PM
Of course, I think you misunderstood my context. What I'm saying is, rape is always illegal, so a rape scene would be depicting an illegal act. Sex with a schoolgirl may be perfectly legal depending on her age, so a school uniform is not in itself suggestive of illegal acts.
You could make a strong case that a depiction of an illegal act should not be censored for that reason. Hollywood action movies often depict violent criminality, after all. But Neophyte appears to be advocating an even greater restriction than that - that a depiction of something which in itself could be perfectly legal should be censored because of the potential to evoke criminal ideas in the mind of the viewer. This would appear to me to give censors carte blanche to stamp down on all porn, as a rapist may view it and fantasise.
And again, before this drifts off topic, a reminder that 1) regardlesof the legal age of consent in the UK Im obviously only talking about material featuring girls 18 or over, and 2)people seem to turn a blind eye to the teen uniform style fantasy material in the US without assuming closet pedophilia, and frankly I couldnt give a toss about the British Board of Film Censcors opinion - a couple of years ago they wouldnt even allow any sexual activity to be depicted, and that didnt somehow make sex morally wrong.
Not at all, in fact I'm not applying the doctrine, but rather using it's preeminence to illustrate the importance of the concept.
In fact, in the UK, you can be locked up for having a culpable state of mind, if you are considered a danger to yourself or others, without having committed an actual physical offence against another person.
And sex offenders will not be released from detention until such time as they are no longer considered a danger to society by mental health professionals - the criterion used is whether they still have a "guilty mind".
The argument I am putting forward is that porn that crosses the line, as drawn by the BBFC, may produce a guilty mind in a potential offender, who will then commit an actual offence when the opportunity presents itself.
It could be, but it currently isn't, because how to apply this argument is a matter of judgement not an absolute / black and white issue.As I understand it porn depicting non-consensual sex is "always" illegal in the UK.As I said above, this is a matter of judgement [made by the BBFC], not a black and white issue.
[Edited to eliminate [hopefully] "confusing" wording \ syntax].
In context that sentence makes sense to me, though clearly not to you!
But if we are to be pedantic, and consider it in isolation then -
I don't think it can be proven that any absolutes exist, so it is impossible to disprove the validity of my statement. You could certainly debate it, especially in a discussion forum!Yes, really; a group of people may have a set of opinions, which may not coincide, but all of which may be considered reasonable.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to see how many angels I can fit on a pinhead!
There used to be a VHS series called Euro Teens, one of which featured a girl in uniform. She spoke with a very British accent (most of the other girls in that series were East European).
Which has nothing whatsover to do with the mens rea doctrine, which applies exclusively to the determination of criminal guilt and appropriate punishment. The locking up you refer to is not done as punishment, but under mental health legislation for the protection of the individual and/or the public, and applies only for as long as the state of mind exists. In fact, it's quite the opposite of mens rea, as the individuals concerned are often held not to be responsible for their actions by virtue of insanity.How exactly can a depiction of legal activity be held to induce the desire to commit illegal acts and/or mental illness in the viewer?
And what about all the action movies that depict the bad guys commiting acts which are illegal? Under your proposed censorship regime, they would surely have to be banned.
Yes, and please explain how this is relevant to a depiction of the perfectly legal act of having consensual sex with a legal-age schoolgirl.Your "matter of judgement" gives the censors carte blance to censor anything they don't personally like.
You're advocating nonsensical criteria which could easily lead to the banning of all porn. Quoting legal doctrines you don't understand doesn't help to support your argument.
I'll ignore your more adversarial comments, as in previous replies, as I don't believe they advance the discussion.
- Clearly censorship is a matter of judgement; - it is always likely to be done by a body like the BBFC; - in the UK we are always likey to have such limits on our personal freedom; - the criteria are not nonsensical, as they have the support of many reasonable people; - sex offenders jailed for criminal offences are only released after psychological assessment; - the corrupting effect of porn [inculcating a culpable mind] has been one the main arguments advanced by anti-porn campaigners for just about as long as there have been anti-porn campaigners.
Only if you see such issues in black and white, with no grey areas in between.
[Link]
Ivor Biggun Deactivated User
99 Posts 6/04
Posted - Mar 26 2005 : 12:21PM
"Grey areas" and the personal judgment of people in positions of power is not a sound basis to restrict what consenting adults may or may not do. These things are necessarily black and white - has a law been broken or not?
That's the way we do things in the UK. You can't change it, so I suggest you get over it.
[Although the BBFC addresses itself to inanimate artefacts [video] rather than what consenting adults may do!].
[Link]
Ivor Biggun Deactivated User
99 Posts 6/04
Posted - Mar 26 2005 : 12:41PM
Thanks for such a clear rebuttal of my arguments... Although I'm rather puzzled by your suggestion that it's impossible to change things in a democracy.Erm, it's consenting adults that make and buy porn videos, and the BBFC that stands between them, as if that wasn't obvious.
