See Worldwide VoD at Hot Movies
New users get first 10 minutes free (5 for premium titles)
Hot Movies has announced in a press release the launch of pay-per-download virtual reality porn. Danny C, HotMovies' Director of Marketing said:
This is an exciting time for HotMovies. We've been hard at work on this for quite some time; we wanted to ensure a great VR experience for our customers. We offer our movies in beautiful high definition; movies can be launched directly into the
FreeVRPlayer app, and our movies can be played on almost all VR-supporting devices. There's no reason for customers to go anywhere else, because we're amassing all the virtual reality movies they could ever want.
HotMovies is known for its vast variety of content, and its VR offering will be no exception. The company has already struck deals to carry VR content from many top studios, including some that customers may not know have ventured into virtual reality,
and more content agreements are being inked regularly. Virtual reality has launched on HotMovies with content from the amazing BadoinkVR studio, and more movies will be added every week for the foreseeable future.
Watch Stripper Off Duty is a 2016 Europe adult film (VR Bangers)
Starring Violette Pink.
Skinny, petite, blonde Violette Pink has been a ballet girl since she was a little girl, but recently she felt that something was wrong between you and her and the spark just wasn't their!. She starts snooping around and finds a
receipt from the strip club in your jacket. You've always told her that you were playing poker with the guys but she knows that's not true. Sooo, to spice things up Violette decides to show you a little stripper dance that turns into smoking hot
masturbation action! She's gets on the floor and rubs that pussy until her legs start shaking from joy! Who needs a stripper now when you have the next best thing at home?
Last month, a California judge tentatively ruled that he would dismiss charges lodged by California's attorney general against
Backpage.com's chief executive and two of its former owners. After an interim scare, the judge has now issued a final judgement confirming the previous ruling and the charges have been dismissed.
The CEO, Carl Ferrer was charged with pimping a minor, pimping, and conspiracy to commit pimping in connection to online advertisements posted on the online ads portal. California's attorney general Kamala Harris claimed that advertisements
amounted to solicitation of prostitution.
However Judge Michael Bowman agreed with the defendants, including former owners Michael Lacey and James Larkin, that they were protected, among other things, by the Communications Decency Act, and hence they were not liable for third-party ads posted by
others. The ruling said:
By enacting the CDA, Congress struck a balance in favor of free speech by providing for both a foreclosure from prosecution and an affirmative defense at trial for those who are deemed an internet service provider.
California attorney general Kamala Harris is pursuing new charges against Backpage.com website
The fresh charges, which attorney general Kamala Harris claims are based on new evidence, come after an earlier case against the website was thrown out of court.
The website advertises escort services and seems t have wound up Harris who claimed that the site operated a hotbed of illicit and exploitative activity .
Harris said she had charged Backpage executives Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey and James Larkin with 13 counts of pimping and conspiracy to commit pimping. They also are charged with 26 counts of money laundering. In the latest case, filed in Sacramento
County superior court, Harris claims Backpage illegally funnelled money through multiple companies and created various websites to get around banks that refused to process transactions. (This does not seem a particularly surprising, or necessarily bad
thing to do).
She also alleged that the company used photos of women from Backpage on other sites without their permission in order to increase revenue and knowingly profited from the proceeds of prostitution. And from what Harris said in a statement it seems that
hers is a morality campaign against sex work. Harris said:
By creating an online brothel -- a hotbed of illicit and exploitative activity -- Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey, and James Larkin preyed on vulnerable victims, including children, and profited from their exploitation.
Murray Perkins of the BBFC explains how all the world's major porn websites will have to be totally banned in Britain (even if they set up age verification systems) under the censorship rules contained in the Digital Economy Bill
The BBFC currently cuts about 15% of all R18 porn films on their way to totally ordinary mainstream porn shops. These are not niche or speciality
films, they are totally middle of the road porn, which represents the sort of content on all the world's major porn sites. Most of the cuts are ludicrous but Murray Perkins, a senior examiner of the BBFC, points out that they are all considered either be
to be harmful, or else are still prohibited by the police or the government for reasons that have long since past their sell by date.
So about a sixth of all the world's adult films are therefore considered prohibited by the British authorities, and so any website containing such films will have to be banned as there is to practical way to cut out the bits that wind up censors, police
or government. And this mainstream but prohibited content appears on just about all the world's major porn sites, free or paid.
The main prohibitions that will cause a website to be blocked (even before considering whether they will set up strict age verification) are such mainstream content as female ejaculation, urine play, gagging during blow jobs, rough sex, incest story
lines (which is a major genre of porn at the moment), use of the word 'teen' and verbal references to under 18's.
Murray Perkins has picked up the job of explaining this catch all ban. He explains it well, but he tries to throw readers off track by citing examples of prohibitions being justifiable because the apply to violent porn, whilst not mentioning that
they apply equally well to trivia such as female squirting.
Perkins writes in the Huffington Post:
Recent media reports highlighting what content will be defined as prohibited material under the terms of the Digital Economy Bill could have given an inaccurate impression of the serious nature of the harmful material that the BBFC generally refuses to
classify. The BBFC works only to the BBFC Classification Guidelines and UK law, with guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and enforcement bodies, and not to any other lists.
The Digital Economy Bill aims to reduce the risk of children and young people accessing, or stumbling across, pornographic content online. It proposes that the BBFC check whether
(i) robust age verification is in place on websites containing pornographic content and
(ii) whether the website or app contains pornographic content that is prohibited.
An amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, passed in the House of Commons, would also permit the BBFC to ask Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block pornographic websites that refuse to offer effective age verification or contain prohibited material
such as sexually violent pornography.
In making any assessment of content, the BBFC will apply the standards used to classify pornography that is distributed offline. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 the BBFC is obliged to consider harm when classifying any content including 18 and R18
rated sex works. Examples of material that the BBFC refuses to classify include pornographic works that: depict and encourage rape, including gang rape; depict non-consensual violent abuse against women; promote an interest in incestuous behaviour; and
promote an interest in sex with children. [Perkins misleadingly neglects to include, squirting, gagging, and urine play in his examples here]. The Digital Economy Bill defines this type of unclassifiable material as
Under its letters of designation the BBFC may not classify anything that may breach criminal law, including the Obscene Publications Act (OPA) as currently interpreted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS provides guidance on acts which are
most commonly prosecuted under the OPA. The BBFC is required to follow this guidance when classifying content offline and will be required to do the same under the Digital Economy Bill. In 2015, 12% of all cuts made to pornographic works classified by
the BBFC were compulsory cuts under the OPA. The majority of these cuts were to scenes involving urolagnia which is in breach of CPS guidance and could be subject to prosecution.
Warning: Fake News Alert: When did politicians ever care about a robust evidence base when issues of morality are at stake?
In July the Home Affairs Committee said soliciting for sex in England and Wales should no longer be a criminal offence. MPs also suggested sex workers should be able to share premises rather than risk working alone.
However such policies are way to liberal for the government and so they have commissioned another research report, no doubt hoping that it will reach a more proscriptive solution. After all there are still lots of men to jail for the heinous crime of
simply trying to enjoy the pleasures of life.
Home Secretary Amber Rudd has said that a robust evidence base was needed before policy changes were addressed. And so another Home Office research project has been commissioned and will report back next June. Rudd commented that any government
response should include:
Ensuring those involved in prostitution and sex work are safeguarded, that traffickers and those who exploit vulnerable people can be effectively targeted, and ensuring that community concerns about prostitution and sex work can be addressed.
Britain's minister of censorship culture has said that the government will move block the vast majority of internet porn, both
domestic and foreign.
Culture Secretary Karen Bradley threatened:
We made a promise to keep children safe from harmful pornographic content online and that is exactly what we are doing. Only adults should be allowed to view such content and we have appointed a regulator, BBFC, to make sure the right age checks are in
place to make that happen. If sites refuse to comply, they should be blocked.
In fulfilling this manifesto commitment and working closely with people like (MPs) Claire Perry and Kit Malthouse who have worked tirelessly on internet safety issues, we are protecting children from the consequences of harmful content.
The powers will be brought forward in amendments to the Digital Economy Bill later this month.
Porn websites will be allowed to stay open if they adopt onerous age validation but as yet no one has come up with a solution that is accurate, cheap, convenient and secure enough to be viable. The only currently acceptable method is to allow porn
only to those willing to pay with credit cards, (debit cards not allowed). Not only do you have to go through the hassle of filling in credit card details, you have to trust potentially dodgy foreign websites with your ID information, you have to pay
before being able to see what is on offer. Needless to say, the UK adult online trade that has been subjected to this suffocating censorship regime have been forced to either go bankrupt or go abroad.
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), will be given powers to make ISPs censor porn sites which do not put age checks in place to make them inaccessible to children.
On a slightly more positive note The BBFC said any verification mechanism must provide assurances around data protection and it would consider those that already exist and ones currently being developed. It is understood the government is working
with the BBFC to determine the best mechanism that confirms eligibility rather than identifying the user.
The Canadian Parliament has unanimously agreed a motion calling on the Commons Standing Committee on Health to
examine the public health effects of the ease of access and viewing of online violent and degrading sexually explicit material on children, women and men.
Kamal Khera, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of health, announced the government's full support for the motion.
Northern Alberta MP Arnold Viersen, the driving force behind the motion told the religious website, LifeSiteNews, loath to raise the issue of internet censorship and that oncentrating on the health implications was a good way to ensure all-party
support and also to stress public education rather than legal restrictions. Ultimately, he wants the same kind of widespread condemnation of pornography that has already occurred with smoking. Rather than offering any evidence of harm, he is rather
hoping for something to crop up in the future. He said:
Gradually the scientific evidence became known about smoking's impact on the heart and the lungs. Now that kind of information about the health impact of pornography on the user is also being discovered.
When pornography's harms become thoroughly exposed, he hopes that Internet providers will restrict porn use voluntarily.
In Canada, sexually explicit websites get more visitors each month than Netflix, Amazon, and Twitter combined, with PornHub, the largest free site, alone receiving over 21 billion visits in 2015. Thirty-five percent of all Internet downloads are sexually
explicit. Globally, this sexually explicit material is a $97 billion industry.
With all that porn being used and so little evidence of tangible harm, one wonders what the MPs are hoping to discover. Perhaps they should examine the public health effects of the ease of access and viewing of online violent religious material on
children, women and men. The murder and violence caused by religion is far more widespread and apparent than any moralistic hopes that there may be a few moral downsides to porn.
Canada's government will belatedly present legislation next week that removes a ban on engaging in anal sex.
The government is a little coy over the word 'anal' and has titled the bill: An Act related to the repeal of section 159 of the Criminal Code.
Section 159 states that:
Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
The law makes an exception for heterosexual married couples and for any two persons over the age of 18 who consent and do so in a private space. The law applies, however, if more than two persons engage in anal sex or if another person watches.
And the police are continuing to enforce this provision. Between 2008 and 2014 in Ontario, 22 people were charged with anal intercourse under Section 159. Two of those were youth. More than half of those charged in Quebec were youth.
Repealing section 159 has been an ongoing request by members of the LGBTQ community for years.
Judges in federal, Quebec, Alberta, B.C. and Nova Scotia appellate courts have all ruled that section 159 is unconstitutional.
A sex worker's group, SCOT-PEP, has accused Police Scotland of using 'support, health and wellbeing' (SHAW) visits as a
cover for raids in an attempt to criminalise those involved in the sex industry. Police have been turning up at the homes of known sex workers unannounced to deliver 'support' or 'advice' to people who sell sex.
SCOT-PEP co-chair Nadine Stott said:
In a legal context where the police prosecute sex workers, it's completely inappropriate to use police surveillance and unannounced police visits to deliver 'support' or 'advice' to people who sell sex.
We have now seen that part of Police Scotland's own remit with regards to Operation SHAW is to 'identify other criminality'. For sex workers in our network, this raises the frightening possibility that Police Scotland are conducting surveillance and
surprise home visits on sex workers under the veneer of offering 'help and support', while in fact looking for opportunities to criminalise sex workers for drug use, immigration offences or anything else they can find.
In an attempt to assist sex workers, SCOT-PEP has published know your rights cards for sex workers in Romanian, Thai, Portuguese, Polish and Mandarin
Police have informed another sex worker group called Encompass who are working with the SHAW scheme that no women have been prosecuted as a result of any SHAW visit. Detective Chief Inspector Stuart Houston, head of Police Scotland's Human Trafficking
Police Scotland is committed to improving the safety and wellbeing of people, localities and communities. It is recognised that many males and females involved in prostitution are there as a result of force or a perception of limited alternatives. It is
also acknowledged that other persons may have freely chosen to be involved in prostitution.
SHAW (Support, Health and Wellbeing) visits were introduced by Police Scotland and our partners to improve our multi-agency response to 'off-street' prostitution. Visits are victim-centred as opposed to enforcement being a priority. The methodology has
been developed through collaboration between Police Scotland and key partner agencies.
On the 18 of October, sex workers and allies held a protest outside the Taipei City Government. Protesters asked for the decriminalisation of
sex work, for an end to illegal entrapment practices targeting sex workers, and for the government to stop ignoring sex workers. They are asking for safe and legal places to work.
One week ago, Taiwan Supreme Court Judge announced his support of the decriminalisation of sex work and the establishment of zones allowing sex work in Taipei. After the announcement, activists met outside Taipei City Government to demand the Mayor
announce his position. Tsai Ting-sheng, Speaking as Secretary for Taipei City Administrative Department, said the opinions of protesters would be brought back for further deliberation. However, sex workers say this issue has been continuously
dismissed and treated with contempt by governments.
In 2011, an amendment to the Social Order and Maintenance Act gave local governments powers to designate special sex trade zones for consenting adults. However all 22 county and city mayors have spoken against fencing off a sex zone in their district on
fears of a surge in crime rates and a plunge in real estate values according to reports.
Under this policy, both sex workers and their clients are subject to fines ranging from NT$1,500 (Euro $45) to NT$30,000 (Euro $870) for engaging in paid sex outside the permissible vicinity. Before these newer laws were introduced, only the sex workers
themselves had been penalised.
Penalizing sex workers drives the industry deeper underground, and only decriminalisation can ensure the proper regulation and management of the industry, Hsu said in response to lawmakers' questions at the Supreme Court last week.
Despite the change of legislation in 2011, lawmakers and city governments have both avoided the issue. In the meantime, failure to address the issue has left sex workers enduring a lack of safe and legal places to work.
Kuo Pei-yu, Secretary of COSWAS explained how the Taipei mayor was giving the police and city government free rein to treat sex workers like ATM machines by having undercover officers pose as clients and entrap sex workers. Sex workers are
asked to pay large fines by police officers who entrap them. She said this strategy was illegal as it induced people to commit crimes. The fines from such charges can be up to $1 million Taiwanese Dollars (approximately 29,000 Euros).
A flagship London West End lap dancing club is in trouble with the local council for offering a little too much fun.
Platinum Lace at Trocadero just off Leicester Square boasts on its website of entertaining the likes of Pixie Lott, Professor Green, Snoop Dogg, David Haye and a host of Premier League footballers.
It hit the headlines earlier this year after a video emerged of two of its dancers encouraging customers to fondle them. And this week, the miserable bosses at Westminster City Council have announced a course of action.
The Council will put questions about their enforcement action in a public consultation and have now confirmed the venue had its licence temporarily extended ahead of the results of the consultation. When the public have had their say, the
council's licensing committee will re-visit the application and decided whether consultation to close the club down or not.
An undercover investigation into practices at the club revealed a number of the dancers openly breaking the council regulations, including two dancers called Mindy and Carla , who were covertly filmed allowing customers to grope them in VIP
booths. Further footage, shot in December, shows a blonde dancer called Mindy also placing a customer's hands all over her body at the London venue.
A team of officers from Westminster City Council reviewed video evidence and spoke with club bosses after the evidence surfaced earlier this year.
In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in struck down laws prohibiting anal and oral sex. However this has not
prevented the state of Mississippi from disgracefully continuing to persecute those who partake in anal and oral sex.
Although anal and oral sex is no longer illegal, Mississippi still has laws on its books requiring transgressors to register as sex offenders. And f you think that this is just some weird anachronism, that couldn't possibly still be enforced, then think
again. Five victims of this law have filed a class action against Mississippi.
They are suing Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and others in the state's administration and investigatory agencies for:
Continu[ing] to enforce its criminal statute prohibiting sodomy, titled Unnatural Intercourse, Miss. Code Ann. §97-29-59, by requiring people convicted of Unnatural Intercourse to register as sex offenders and follow myriad, onerous prescriptions on
their everyday life pursuant to Mississippi's sex offender registry law, Miss. Code Ann. §45-33-21 et seq ... Mississippi also requires individuals convicted of violating sodomy prohibitions in other jurisdictions (whether or not those prohibitions are
registerable offenses in the original jurisdiction) to comply with Mississippi's registration law.
The suit goes on to detail the indignities those branded as sodomites must go through to comply with Mississippi's criminal code, including having their photos and personal information displayed on publicly accessible sex offender websites, file
changes of address with the state, being forced to disclose all online user names and identities not only to the state but to potential employers, as well as the names and addresses of employers and schools attended--and being barred from certain areas
such as campgrounds and beaches where young children may be present.
The reason the five plaintiffs have filed their suit as a class action is, according to the Complaint, that:
The putative class is so numerous as to render joinder impractical. There are dozens of individuals statewise who must register as sex offenders solely or in part because of a conviction for Unnatural Intercourse or a conviction considered to be an
Carl Ferrer, head of small ads website Backpage.com has been arrested on allegations of pimping, the California Attorney General
has announced .
In a rather blatant conflating of trafficking with adult consensual sex work, the department said that a three-year investigation concluded that many of its adult escort adverts involved prostitutes and victims of sex trafficking, including
children. Warrants have also been issued for two controlling shareholders.
The site, which operates around the world, is still online.