Well It’s Here….

I’ve just logged onto a website that I’ve been visiting over many years, yesterday or it may have been in the early hours of this morning I visited without any problems, tonight was different. From sometime during the daytime of Friday July 25 age verification for all UK users came into effect. Previously you were asked ‘Are you 18+?’ Click, ‘I’m not a robot,’ Click, and all would be well. Then you could register as a member, now it has to be formally confirmed that you’re indeed eighteen or over. This is what faced me tonight.

[INDENT=3]From July 25, 2025, a new UK law to protect minors requires all users to prove they're 18+ to view adult content, including our website.[/INDENT]
[INDENT=3][/INDENT]
[INDENT=3][/INDENT]
[INDENT=3]By clicking “Start Age Verification”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.[/INDENT]
[INDENT=3][/INDENT]
[INDENT=3]Prepare a device with a camera to start the age verification[/INDENT]
[INDENT=3][/INDENT]
[INDENT=3]Verification is performed by a third party service provider[/INDENT]
[INDENT=3][/INDENT]
[INDENT=3]Your data will not be stored, shared, or viewed by others[/INDENT]
[INDENT=3][/INDENT]
[INDENT=3]Once verified, your access privileges are saved to your profile on your next login (or immediately if you’re already logged in). No need to verify again![/INDENT]



No doubt we will get used to it, well it’s a case of having to! This shows you what we're likely to expect.

Regards

S.

Well that sucks donkey biscuits. At this rate the only people that will be able to access adult sites are tech savvy kids and those smart enough to hold a picture of their fathers up in front of the web cam! :ROFLMAO:

If all they need is a photo to prove your age, it will be like when I was o teenager getting booze. There was always someone in the group whose looks could pass for legal age, and that's who wee'd send in for the beer.

Yep been annoying for 2 days they want ID photo or credit card info. only now on 1 site cuss rest are too complex no doubt will clear a couple more over weekend but I might just clear all my history and links etc to work from a far fewer range of sites.

Yes it certainly is, I was asked for my email address or my Moblile number. I didnt have to take a photo of myself or anything, then I got a code and had to put that in to get verified, but I'm a member of site too. I don't know what it's like if you are not a Member, but I'm naughty🤣🤣

It wouldnt accept my email address, but apparantly they are having issues with certain email providers

I am curious. What about sites that sell sex dolls. Age verification will certainly kill the number of visitors to any online site so I can't see a multinational site do age verification universally, just to people in the UK. I am in the US so it doesn't apply to me.

So this morning are any of the doll selling sites requiring age verification in the UK?

Let’s be real: if a site exists to sell sex dolls, it’s dealing in adult products meant for sexual use. Under the UK’s Online Safety Act, that puts it squarely in OFCOM’s crosshairs. These aren’t collectibles or toys—they’re sold for intimacy, often with erotic marketing. That makes them adult services, and age verification isn’t optional. It’s legally required. A simple “Are you 18?” checkbox won’t cut it anymore. If these sites are open to minors—even accidentally—they’re likely exposing themselves to serious regulatory risk.

But that said, would a seller located in China ever bother to comply? I can't image them sending a bobby (not our Bobby) to arrest someone or to serve a warrant in China. Although I could see it as British comedy movie...

"The King's Rubber"
One man. One mission. One million sex dolls. And not a single age check.

When OFCOM accidentally issues an international warrant under the new Online Safety Act, bumbling British constable Reginald "Reggie" Blunt (Rowan Atkinson)—a desk-bound bobby famous for policing village bake sales—is inexplicably chosen to lead a diplomatic "cyber moral enforcement" mission to Guangzhou, China.

His task? Arrest the elusive and possibly imaginary Mr. Dong—owner of a sex doll mega-factory accused of failing to install proper UK-compliant age verification popups on their website.

Reggie, armed with a folding bicycle, Queen Elizabeth commemorative mug, and a printed copy of OFCOM's 500-page compliance manual, storms into China like a cross between Mr. Bean and Inspector Clouseau.

But as Reggie mistakenly interprets a sex doll assembly line tour as a hostage situation, things spiral. He tries to “liberate” crates of anatomically correct dolls, mistakes a male sex doll for a diplomat, and delivers a heartfelt anti-obscenity speech to a very confused panel of factory robots.

Meanwhile, Mr. Dong is just trying to explain—in perfect English—that the website does have age verification, but Reggie keeps getting blocked by the factory’s Wi-Fi filter for searching “rubber + naughty.”

In the end, it all culminates in a climactic misunderstanding involving a diplomatic banquet, a malfunctioning talking doll, and a viral TikTok video that makes Reggie the accidental "Face of British Morality" across Asia.
.
.

What a great film LOL

When Protection Becomes Control: The Quiet Dangers of OFCOM’s Age Verification Push
Protecting children is not the problem. It’s how we’re doing it, and who profits from the process.

Nobody is arguing that children should be able to freely access pornography. That’s not the issue.
Most of us, whether we’re parents, creators, or just adults with a conscience, agree on the goal of protecting minors from online harm.

But the current methods now being deployed under the UK Online Safety Act, as enforced by OFCOM, raise serious and uncomfortable questions
What are we sacrificing in the name of protection And who’s cashing in on it.

The Privacy Cost of “Verification”

Under OFCOM’s new rules, “age assurance” no longer means ticking a box saying “I’m 18.” It means photo ID uploads, facial scans, credit card verification, and possibly even AI-based biometric analysis to guess your age from your face.

That might sound reasonable in theory until you realize that such systems are:

• Built by private corporations with little transparency
• Prone to data breaches, identity theft, or misuse
• And in many cases, completely unnecessary for sites that aren’t actually pornographic but merely “adult adjacent”

Corruption by Extremes: Industry Giants & Moral Zealots

Legislation never stays clean. It gets twisted, often by the very forces it was meant to regulate.

Mega porn platforms say “Sure, we’ll comply with the new rules… but only if we can dictate the terms.”
Moral crusaders and religious lobbying groups would prefer no adult content of any kind to exist at all.

And both flood regulators with testimony. Stories that serve their cause and only their cause. Real, exaggerated, or entirely fictional. It doesn’t matter. Narrative drives policy.

The potential victims are small content creators. Indie educators. Sex-positive bloggers. Adult doll reviewers. Small shops selling legitimate intimacy aids.

For them, OFCOM’s rules may feel less like protection and more like extortion. They may bear disproportionate overhead simply to comply by outsourcing to compliant, possibly expensive verifiers. The Act does not limit fees, the financial burden could be significant.

Comply, pay third party verifiers, or face massive fines. For many, that’s a death sentence to their livelihood or a muzzle on their voice.

Defacto Censorship and the Violence Double Standard

OFCOM’s reach isn’t limited to sexual content. It also claims a duty to shield children from violence and extreme political content.

Sounds fine… until you ask:

• Will war journalism be age-gated or removed
• Can whistleblowers publish accounts of atrocities committed by government backed forces without triggering safety filters
• Will independent artists or creators start watering down their work for fear of crossing some invisible moral line

If the rules are vague, risk averse platforms will always overcorrect. Censorship by fear is still censorship.

Sex Dolls Are in the Crosshairs

Let’s be clear. Sex dolls and realistic intimacy devices are already under scrutiny.

Sites that sell them, review them, or even show photos of them are at serious risk of being reclassified as adult content providers. Not because they distribute pornography, but because the imagery or context is considered adult enough.

If their marketing is even slightly erotic or if their content could theoretically arouse, they may soon be forced to implement full age verification systems. The same ones used for porn.

Even nonprofit or educational review sites could be swept up in this regulatory overreach.

Round One Passed Through Stories. But Without Ours, What Will Round Two Bring?

Stories of harm
Stories of outrage
Stories they use to shape law

When are we going to tell our stories? The ones where no one was harmed, and we were simply left alone to choose the companionship that gave us peace.

Testimony Isn’t Just for the Powerful

What makes good law go bad?
Testimony. The kind whispered in Parliament. The disinformation fed the public by special interests. The kind used by tech firms to lobby for rules only they can afford to follow.

If we want laws that protect children without crushing privacy, expression, or autonomy, we need our own stories told. And loudly.

Do you want a say in legislation that will affect you directly? Then you have to speak up. Non-childlike sex dolls harm no one. Build alliances. Tell your stories - your testimony. Push back.

Because what started out as protecting kids has evolved into behavior control by government and profit by big corporations.

Because watching from the shadows isn’t a winning strategy...
It is surrender.
.

Seriously now, you really need to publish this kind of piece to ensure a more widespread readership. Have you thought about submitting a piece like this to a national newspaper? Or to an Internet news provider? Something this well written and so comprehensive needs to be read by everyone, not just those of us on a Doll forum

The UK Establishment does not care about protecting the children:

• If they cared they would have done something about the grooming gang scandal.
• If they cared they would have put Jimmy Saville behind bars years ago (everyone knew about it - the BBC banned Johnny Rotten for outing Jimmy Saville way back in 1978.)
• If they cared they would not be allowing illegal immigrants into this country without having a clue who they are (just think about it, you need ID to access a website, but you don't need ID to illegally enter the country and be given free hotel stays, free tax payers money they have no right to, and freedom to roam the country.)

It's all about control.

I wouldn't be surprised if once Trump is gone they shutdown X (Twitter.) I am not on X but I do believe in free speech. Alas, the UK is not free speech friendly, this is George Orwell's 1984 my friends. We need a revolution. Guy Fawkes was right, burn down the House of Parliament 😆 (apologies, I got a bit carried away at the end.)

Well Bob said, do you remember getting your first porn mag, and seeing your teacher in that short skirt from under the desk, well it's back, how exciting it's all going to be (y)

Ah, fond memories indeed. Us fellows worked hard just to catch a glimpse of a gal's undies back then and you know what? For me at least, it was somehow more rewarding than in your face porn being a mere click away...

A very apt BBC news article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn72ydj70g5o

Check out the comments too as they are always good for a laugh.

"So glad that the govt invested so much effort into making such a fine chocolate teapot" 😆

Once you've let the genie out the jar, it's nigh on impossible to put it back in again. We can't go back to Victorian times.

Most young people have zero interest in porn, but those that do will still find a way to get what they want.

And remember, the "UK Online Safety Act" has very little to do with protecting children but everything to do with Orwellian control. Say something the government doesn't like and they'll shut you down.

If anything the UK Online Safety Act is going to make people less safe if they start using dodgy free VPNs.

I am 100% in favour of blocking children accessing harmful content online. But I have zero trust in our institutions. We are ruled by incompetents. 🍻

Thank you Jed, truly, for seeing the bigger picture. That means more to me than you might realize. Our conversation outside this forum have taught me a lot and your love of dolls an inspiration.

I do want to acknowledge something honestly. I live in the US, and have been quietly wondering if that alone might be why some of my posts in this forum haven’t quite landed the way I hoped. I’ve started to worry that anything I say might unintentionally come across as an American “telling Brits what to do,” and that’s the last thing I want. I’m not here to point out legal issues with people who are actually living under those rules, you are already impacted by them. I’m here because I care deeply about the broader impact on real people.

Sometimes, being American in a UK-based forum feels like a double bind, like if I say anything, I risk sounding presumptuous, but if I stay silent, then voices like ours stay unheard. I don’t want to be a distraction from the core message. I just want to stand with you, not over you, and contribute in whatever way actually helps.

So thank you again Jed (and my true friends on this forum) for meeting me where I am. If there’s a better way I can support without stepping on toes, I’m wide open to learning.

--Hanna--
.

I personally don't see the nationality of people on the forum too much, everyone has equal standing here.

Ok. So let me clarify. No, my comment has nothing to do with national pride or anything like that. As a matter of fact that is what I am trying to avoid. Actually, walking on eggshells to avoid not coming across that way.

But it is more about credibility. In my early days, I was an research analyst for a major multinational consulting firm. My job was to make predictions (read the tea leaves so to speak) in certain areas clints were interested in. My job was not only to read the tea leavea but also to find and collect them. This was long before the internet. That meant hours poring through print media, news/current events (TV/Radio/newspapers/magazines), published books, research papers. Yes, massive amount of reading to find a relevant tea leaf.

So the question becomes, on this forum, "do I give American stories as examples or UK stories?"

If I give American stories to a predominantly UK audience, are they automatically dismissed? "That is in America, not here."

And if I give a UK story is it dismissed because it was told by an American? "What does am American know about what goes on in the UK?" or worse "Here is an American pointing to 'our' problem in the UK. As it doesn't happen in the US?"

In my next post, I chose a UK example simply because I suspect there are more soccer (football) fans here than "clubbers."

Do I go with the more tragic example (perhaps too extreme) or the more relatable one?

On that February night in 2003 at The Station nightclub in West Warwick, Rhode Island, hundreds of music fans poured into the cramped venue eager for an unforgettable show. As the band’s pyrotechnics lit up the stage, the crowd was spellbound by the spectacle. Few noticed the flammable foam lining the walls or the aisles cluttered with speakers and wires—hazards that should have set off alarms. When sparks ignited the foam, the roar of the audience turned to panicked screams. In just six merciless minutes, smoke and flames consumed the room, trapping nearly everyone inside. One hundred people lost their lives, and scores more were injured, not because they lacked exit doors, but because they never saw the danger until it was too late. Those who acted on the first crackle, veering away from the crowd toward any available exit, were the lucky ones.

Effective messaging and cutting through the noise is never easy. But gaining credibility is much harder in this age no one knows what is real or not anymore.
.
.

When Distraction Costs Lives—and Perhaps Our Future Choices

On that May 11, 1985, at Valley Parade in Bradford, thousands of jubilant football fans poured into the wooden Main Stand to celebrate their team’s victory. A dropped match or discarded cigarette ignited debris and rubbish beneath the structure, but in the glow of post‑game excitement and the roar of the crowd, few noticed the thin wisps of smoke curling around the beams. By the time supporters sensed the danger, flames were already spreading along the wooden planks. Panicked spectators rushed for the exits, only to find narrow gangways and blocked pathways. In the chaos, 56 people lost their lives and 265 were injured before firefighters could bring the blaze under control. Those who trusted their instincts—veering away from the crush and breaking through barriers—managed to escape; most others were tragically overtaken by the fire’s sudden fury .

Doll owners today face a similar crossroads, only the threat isn’t fire—it’s creeping regulation. We scroll past articles warning of sweeping age‑verification mandates under OFCOM, but linger on glamorous photos of the latest silicone and TPE companions. We admire the flawless makeup, the stylized poses, the lifelike detailing—just like fans distracted by victory, oblivious to the smoke beneath their feet. Apathy amplifies distraction, and before you know it, the danger has become a crisis.

Yet history also shows us hope: a handful of fans sensed something was off—whether it was smoke, the strange smell, or a fleeting gut instinct—and didn’t wait for confirmation. They moved immediately, even if they weren’t sure it was a fire and not a prank smoke bomb. Their willingness to act on that inner warning saved their lives.

For doll owners, this is our moment to heed the warning signs—not because the stakes are identical, but because the principle is the same. Recognizing danger and acting, even amid distraction, is what preserves our freedom to choose the companions that comfort us. If we delay or look away, the exits may vanish before we know it.

--Hanna--

Not everything is blocked.

I can still get to doll vendor websites without needing any ID. Usually just the - not UK OSB compliant - tick the box to say you're an adult. And no problems getting to TDF and LDN. Will the authorities censor these sites in some way, or are they too small!?

How can the UK Authorities punish sites that aren't hosted in the UK!? I don't see the UK has any jurisdiction, but they could force ISPs (internet service providers) to ban certain web addresses.

Ruled by incompetents? So what's new?

You are correct... But the UK has gone 1984 bonkers

Because the UK authorities are compromised.... Subverted. It is not the will of the people.

Not all was bad in 1984; Joe Bin enjoys driving around in his 1984 Van. :D

Some of the music from 1984 was good too.

For examples:









[URL='?si=Br3_PRu3sP04659m']Sade - Smooth Operator (9 Minute Version) [with Lyrics][/URL]

[URL='?si=r-Z56DxuIATuLO8D']U2 - Pride (In The Name Of Love) (Official Music Video)[/URL]

Evidently they're feeling the heat over at TDF as well. They just permanently locked their "Hot Stuff" section, even though it was only accessible to members only and banned pornography of any kind in all other sections.