Lost in the Hood is a US sex work focussing exclusively on the abduction and rape of a number of men. In each scenario, we see the predatory male characters choose a victim who appears to have become 'lost in the hood' (ie a bad neighbourhood in the United States). They then abduct their chosen victim and force him to engage in sexual acts with them against his will. Each scene places a strong emphasis on the non consensual nature of the sex, with the victims pleading to be released, showing discomfort and making unsuccessful attempts to escape. Similarly, the perpetrators display a high level of physical and verbal aggression. By presenting the spectacle of sexual violence within the context of an explicit sex work, whose primary intention is to sexually arouse the viewer, Lost in the Hood has the effect of eroticising and endorsing sexual violence in a potentially harmful fashion.

In making a decision as to whether a video work is suitable for classification, the Board applies the criteria set out in its current Classification Guidelines, published in 2009. These are the result of an extensive process of public consultation and research and reflect the balance of media effects research, the requirements of UK law and the attitudes of the UK public. The Board’s Guidelines clearly reflect the serious concerns that exist about the portrayal of sexual violence.

The Guidelines for the 'R18' category requested for this video work state that the following content is not acceptable: 'material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (for example [...] rape) the portrayal of any sexual activity which involves lack of consent (whether real or simulated) any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game. Strong physical or verbal abuse, even if consensual, is unlikely to be acceptable'. Under the heading of 'Compulsory Cuts', the Board's Guidelines identify as of particular concern 'sexual violence or sexualised violence which endorses or eroticises the behaviour'. Additionally, under the heading of 'Violence', the Board's Guidelines state that 'A strict policy on sexual violence and rape is applied. Content which might eroticise or endorse sexual violence may require cuts at any classification level [...] Any association of sex with non-consensual restraint, pain or humiliation may be cut'.

Of course, the Board will always seek to deal with such concerns by means of cuts or other modifications when this is a feasible option. However, under the heading of 'Rejects' our Guidelines state that 'If the central concept of a work is unacceptable (for example, a sex work with a rape theme) or if the changes required would be extensive or complex the work may be rejected, ie refused a classification at any category'.

It is the Board's carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults, would be inconsistent with the Board's Guidelines, would risk potential harm within the terms of the VRA, and would be unacceptable to the public.

The Board considered whether its concerns could be dealt with through cuts. However, given that the central concept of the work is unacceptable and that the unacceptable content runs throughout the work, cuts are not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.