Severe Punishment comprises a 37 minute sadomasochistic video work depicting two restrained women being beaten and whipped by a third. The whippings and beatings, which are directed against the women’s buttocks, breasts and genitals as well as their sides and backs, are intense and prolonged, involving the use of a belt, a cat o’ nine tails, a metal wire, a wooden paddle, a cane and a riding crop The beatings lead to the reddening of skin and the raising of weals on the women’s bodies. Other activities in the work, including the use of a pump on a woman’s breasts and the application of clips and pegs to the women’s labia, also appear to inflict pain and, in the case of the breast pump, lead to damage and reddening.At the ‘R18’ category, the BBFC permits mild fetish material, including some spanking, provided that the material in question is mild, clearly consensual and does not result in injury. However, the ‘R18’ Guidelines clearly prohibit “the portrayal of any sexual activity which involves lack of consent (whether real or simulated) ... the infliction of pain or physical harm, real or (in a sexual context) simulated. Some allowance may be made for mild consensual activity ... Strong abuse, even if consensual is unlikely to be acceptable.” (BBFC Guidelines page 22). More generally, the Guidelines clearly set out the Board's serious concerns about sexual violence in films and videos, particularly in an eroticised context. On page 11 it is stated that 'With portrayals of sexual violence which might eg eroticise or endorse sexual assault the Board may require cuts at any classification level ... Any association of sex with non-consensual restraint, pain or humiliation may be cut'. On page 20, under ‘Rejects’, the Board also identifies as of particular concern “sex accompanied by non-consensual pain, injury or humiliation'.The acts shown in Severe Punishment depict the infliction of real pain and injury and therefore go some way beyond the ‘mild’ activity that may be acceptable at ‘R18’. The sole purpose of the work seems to be to invite sexual arousal at the sight of women being beaten, abused and caused real pain and injuries. The position of UK law on sadomasochistic activities was established clearly in the case of R v Brown (aka the ‘Spanner Case’). In this case, the court determined that, regardless of the consent of participants, the infliction of injuries that are more than ‘trifling and transient’ constitutes actual assault and is therefore illegal. The activities shown in this video, leading as they do to weals being raised on the skin, are considerably more than ‘trifling and transient’ and would therefore be likely to fall foul of UK law if carried out in the UK. Our understanding from the CPS and other enforcement agencies is that visual depictions of strong sadomsachistic behaviour are also liable to be found obscene under current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The Board’s strict policy on sexual violence is based in part upon the issue of public acceptability and in part upon the issue of harm. With regard to public acceptability, it is clear that the British public are very concerned by the depiction of sexual violence, and feel that any such depictions should be handled sensitively and with great care. The exploitation of sexual violence for titillation is clearly regarded as unacceptable - and potentially dangerous - by the majority. This was illustrated both by the findings of our 1999-2000 and 2004 public consultation exercises and by a separate research exercise into public attitudes to sexual violence undertaken in 2001-2. With regard to the issue of harm there is a large and persuasive body of evidence over the years from respected and responsible researchers that shows that, where violence and sex are intermingled, the effects upon some people are likely to be harmful. In line with its specific duties under the VRA the Board is required to treat material of this kind very carefully indeed. The Board considered whether cutting would be a viable alternative to rejection. However, given that the infliction of pain and injury on women, in a sexual context, makes up a significant proportion of the work and is its main selling point, the Board did not consider that cutting would leave a viable product.