I was checking out the BBC’s news magazine the other day, and this certainly caught my eye: “A bill outlawing the possession of ‘extreme pornography’ is set to become law next week.”

Remember, the BBC is the UK’s primary news service; this isn’t about what’s happening in the US.

What’s happening in the US is John Stagliano and Max Hardcore, mainly; I really don’t keep up with that stuff at all, except for what I hear and read, which is Stagliano is in trouble for milk enema movies and squirting movies and, as well all know, Max Hardcore has a hard time keeping himself from fisting and pissing on girls.

I’m writing most of this off the top of my head, and from what I can recall, the US courts have always had a hard time defining the word “obscene”. Shit, I have a hard time defining it. A long time ago a judge did his very best to avoid giving any sort real answer when he said something like he “knew it when he saw it”.

Which is a politician’s way of dealing with a tough question, if a politician would even give that sort of question a shot.

So here’s what the UK is coming up with, if you haven’t read it already:

As defined by the new Criminal Justice Bill, “extreme pornography” (and I’m thinking “extreme” is just a different way to say “obscene”) is:

1) An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life
2) An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals
3) An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
4) A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal

OK. My first reaction is the Brits must be geniuses, cause they don’t seem to have a problem defining what we can’t. Then I’m gonna say that if I were King Of The World, I’d do the following:

With #2, I’d get rid of the words “or appears to result in” and just have that rule read —

2) An act which results in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals.

(After all, Vince McMahon and the WWF (E) have been doing it since about 1971, right? And what would happen to Mistress Chanta, my sometimes dinner pal and Enjoyer of Chinese Food?)

Oh! I almost forgot — add something along the lines of another rule, let’s call it #5, which would read:

5) An act which portrays or appears to portray any sort of forced sex act upon a person.

Which means the old box cover you see here…the one I found simply Googleing (or is it Googling ?) “rape” would be a crime, and it would be a felony, and I’m no lawyer, but let’s make it a mid-level felony for first timers, and when I say first timers I mean people who are posessing it.

Producers of that fucking shit — in my book — would go to jail for a very, very long time.

See, how hard is that, Mr. Judge Who Answers Questions Like a Politician?

Squirt fans and milk enema fans everywhere — you’re fuckin’ good to go.

Oh, also, as King Of The World, I would give some sort of tax incentive to producers of scat movies, BUT ONLY if the female talent is pooping on the male talent.

Which is to say, scat movies where men are pooping on women aren’t allowable by law, but women can shit on men all they want.

Afterall, we’ve been doing it to them since about 10,000 BC…it’s their turn, now.

And everyone should be forced to watch.

As far as you bestiality fans, I guess I’m a tree-hugging hippie, cause I don’t think an animal should be coerced into doing something it really doesn’t want to do, even if that means banging Barbie Cummings — so hate on me all you want.

Or, until a dog or a horse can verbally communicate to us and say something like, “Hey! I sure do wanna bang that hot blonde — bring her on!” I’m totally thumbs down on animal porn.

Which may make bestiality fans wonder — where is Mr. Ed when we need him?

With my rant now officially concluded, everyone enjoy “Porn & Beans”, The Weez’s new video, and one you’ll really love if you’ve spent any time on the internet at all.