It's something we all do. Male or female, young or old, human or animal. Men frequently line up to do it while women hold conversations while doing it. It's not illegal and it's not sexual (unless you choose to make it so). You can even buy children's dolls that simulate it. It is, in fact, as natural as eating, sleeping and breathing. So why do the BBFC have such a problem with urinating?

A fascinating conversation took place on Twitter yesterday between the BBFC and Mum and Dad director Steven Sheil, who was curious as to why Jeanie Finlay's new documentary film The Great Hip Hop Hoax had been slapped with an 18 rating. The reason, as it turned out, was down to one single scene, a few seconds long.

I'll let Jeanie Finlay explain the scene and its context:

“The context is that Billy Boyd and Gavin Bain created fictional american identities for themselves – Silibil 'n Brains. They believed that Americans are louder and crazier and it gave them a license to do whatever they like. They ramped up their behaviour and aped Jackass. In the scene in question Silibil pulls out his cock in the middle of a busy Piccadilly Circus - says 'I need a piss" and urinates into Brains' cupped hands. Brains then 'washes' his face in the piss.

"It is pretty shocking to watch but is put into context by the voiceover of the men from now reflecting on their stupid behaviour. We then see them being beaten up by bouncers as a consequence. It's integral to the story to show how far their behaviour had gone.”

Now, that might sound strong stuff. But having watched the scene in question, I can confirm that (a) it is entirely within the context of a discussion about getting caught up in fake personas and losing your identity in the process, and (b) is both brief and not excessively graphic – the 'face washing' takes place off-camera.

I can understand if the BBFC had a blanket policy stating that on-screen urination meant an automatic 18. I might not agree, but the policy would at least be clear. But they don't. As Sheil pointed out, both A Field in England and The Paperboy feature pissing scenes. And both are rated 15. The BBFC response to that was that those two films were “feature films and thus the scenes are simulated” and that “the strong detail” in TGHHH “would confound audience expectations at 15”. Of course, Sheil could have also pointed at an older film, The Draughtsman's Contract, which is also rated 15 and features very clear real urination. Would audiences have expected that, especially as it plays no part in the story?

So it would seem that entirely gratuitous shots of pustulating cocks pissing are okay at 15 if they are not real, and genuine urination is fine too. The offence here seems to be the fact that it was one person pissing into the hands of another in a Dirty Sanchez / Jackass-like moment. The fact that the scene is included as an example of how out of control the false identities adopted by the pair became doesn't matter. The fact that it is not remotely glamourised (in fact, quite the opposite) or sexualised doesn't matter. The fact that this is a cautionary tale and the scene more likely to disgust than amuse doesn't matter. All that matters are entirely imagined “audience expectations.” There is, you'll note, no suggestion that it would actually be harmful to fifteen, sixteen or seventeen year old viewers. Just confounding.

This might not be such a big deal if this wasn't a documentary made with considerable youth appeal. Or if audiences had been horrified about the scene being shown to teenagers. But no one has. As Finlay comments, “at Doxa in Vancouver it was selected as part of the "made for youth' programme, rated as a 14a and won the inaugural Nigel Moore youth jury award for best film. At the Edinburgh Film festival it was selected for the 'not another teen movie" strand and I attended a Q&A and special screening for the youth group of 15 year olds. I also appeared on the Film Club broadcast, aimed at a teen audience.”

Thanks to the BBFC, such screenings will now be forbidden. The film could, of course, be cut – but why should it be? Any cut would damage the story being told and is frankly unnecessary.Thankfully, cuts seem off the agenda, so I guess teenage viewers will just have to wait until the TV broadcast.

Of course, the BBFC have long displayed a ridiculous, unjustifiable and hypocritical attitude to pissing scenes. Golden showers are still one of the forbidden acts in porn, for no good reason. While there are plenty of R18 releases that feature 'eroticised' urination, it's only allowed if it remains in the singular; the moment another person is involved, even if it's just a brief splash hitting the skin, it becomes 'obscene'. But only in porn films. Taxi Zum Klo features a scene where one man pisses in to another's mouth, for the purposes of sexual arousal. This film is passed at 18, and so doesn't even have the sex shop restrictions placed on R18 movies. But apparently – according to the BBFC - “it was noted that the Obscene Publications Act required that a work should be considered as a whole and that, taken as a whole, Taxi Zum Klo was unlikely to be found obscene. Whereas a sex work with similar material might be found to be in breach of the law, the fact that Taxi Zum Klo had a different purpose to a 'sex work' (i.e. its purpose was not merely to sexually arouse) meant that, as an illustration of a particular lifestyle (rather than an attempt to 'sell' or eroticise that lifestyle), it was unlikely to render the work as a whole obscene.”

Of course, there's no evidence to show whether juries would or wouldn't make such a distinction. It's possible that some juries may well find Taxi Zum Klo obscene, especially with an 18 rating where it is more likely that under-age viewers will be able to access it (the OPA is based around who is 'likely' to view it). More likely though, is that juries would not convict a hardcore film based on a pissing scene – especially if they are 'considering the work as a whole' and so not just judging it by a few seconds of content. We don't have to guess at this output – the recent trial of Michael Peacock featured just such material, and he was acquitted unanimously by a jury last year. But BBFC rules – and the Crown Prosecution Service advice they rely on – remain unchanged because apparently it will take more than just one case to change them. Of course, conveniently, the CPS are not pursuing other cases and keep no records of the content of films previously found obscene or why exactly they were convicted – so we have no evidence that pissing scenes have ever been the reason for conviction. This ruling sits alongside the BBFC's now-discredited 'ten year rule', where they claimed to be unable to pass former video nasties uncut for a decade after the most recent conviction. This was shown to be a made up restriction, and the piss porn ban is much the same.

Censorship should be based solely on harm. Harm to participants or to viewers. The BBFC in fact make a big deal of working along those lines now. Watersports may be gross to many, but they are not dangerous and are not illegal. Banning the release of such material is frankly ridiculous and seems more to do with a distaste for any outré sexual desires than anything else.

The age restriction on The Great Hip Hop Hoax denies the film to the audience that might benefit most from its story of media spoofing and loss of control, and it does so not in the name of safety, legality or even decency. It does so because the censors think teenagers shouldn't be able to see something that they might be briefly grossed out (but not harmed) by, and intent and context be damned. Let's just hope that no seventeen year old ever looks down while stood at a urinal...

The Great Hip Hop Hoax opens September 6th in the UK. For adults only.