The BBFC has just published its verdicts about whether online adult retail websites should be considered 18 rated or not for the purposes of mobile internet blocking for under 18s. LoveHoney: www.lovehoney.co.uk
BBFC Adjudication (18 rated)
The URL led to a retail site specialising in sex toys and lingerie. The site lists its products and offers customer reviews; it includes a blog and a forum. In the blog, we found an
entry on electro sex which offered advice on how to apply electricity to the genitals. In the forum, we found repeated very strong language, erotica and entries on rough sex and pornography. Part B of the Framework states that the following issues should
be considered inappropriate for children: fetish material; very strong references to sexual behaviour using pornographic terms; repeated very strong language; and sex education or advice which is i) aimed at adults and ii) inappropriate for children.
Each is present on the site under consideration and, accordingly, the BBFC found material on the website that we would classify at least 18. 10 July 2023
Ann Summers: www.annsummers.com
BBFC Adjudication (not 18 rated)
As previously, we noted that the URL led to a site devoted to images of the male form. It contained a gallery section, a news section and contact details. The site no longer
contained erotica or provided hyperlinks to other sites which we would rate 18+. The BBFC Mobile Classification Framework states that works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal should be considered 18+: we do not believe that the site met this test.
Rather, we consider such images as were available on the date of sampling to be 'glamour' material, ie, material which may be sexual, but the primary purpose of which is not to arouse or stimulate. Consequently, we found no material that we would rate
18+ for reasons outlined in part B of the framework.
Agent Provocateur: https://www.agentprovocateur.com/
BBFC Adjudication (not 18 rated)
The
URL led to a retailer of lingerie and associated products. There are multiple images of women posing in underwear, but these do not go beyond the requirements of the company to advertise their garments. The shop also sells items such as whips, but
without describing in detail what these products might be used for. At the time of sampling, we did not find for sale any more advanced BDSM paraphernalia such as ball gags, nipple clamps or even handcuffs. The site does not feature a blog or anywhere
for visitors to post comments. We found no material that we would rate 18+ for reasons outlined in part B of the framework
Another website also revealed a little about about the BBFC's thinking abpout glamour
material
Zoe Ballz: https://zoeballz.tv
BBFC Adjudication (not 18 rated)
#The URL led to the homepage of a video game streamer, and included a brief bio, as well
as links to her YouTube page, her Twitch stream and a list of some of her favourite songs. It also included a photo gallery with glamour-style photographs. The Framework makes some allowance for images which have clear suggestive intentions but whose
primary purpose falls short of sexual arousal or stimulation. We found no nudity in the gallery, nor any stronger sexual detail and the images available at the time of sampling were comfortably permitted under the glamour concession. We found no material
that we would rate 18+ for reasons outlined in part B of the framework
