There must be a line somewhere, and it is reasonable to debate where exactly that line should be.
In this case, it feels natural to me that the line for images should be aligned with the line for the act itself.
Banning images of things that are not themselves illegal makes little sense to me and feels a bit like someone trying to legislate away otherwise legal behavior just because they personally find it distasteful.
The Comics Code Authority kind of took that line. "Realistic" crime could not be depicted in comic books, which is a big part of why Silver Age comic book villains are so surreal.
Why is it I can watch James Bond murder a couple of dozen people on the big screen and that's fine, but watching a perfectly normal consensual act is taboo.
Christ, I don't get the step relative thing, but if you do, but don't want to do anything to your step child. Go for it.
It wasn't long ago that homosexuality was conflated with pedophilia. This is coming from exactly the same place.
And then there's the intellectual honesty. Are these people not into anything sexual? I get the school girl thing. I'm not a pedo, I'm sure a psychologist could break it down, but I don't get it, when I break it down. Do the politicians have these fantasies and are in denial? Think they can 'control their urges' but others can't?
Why can't it be that I like the idea of a grown adult female in school uniform sexy, and that I'm honest about that and I'm honest about the fact I don't want to sleep with a 15 year old.
> I don't get the step relative thing, but if you do, but don't want to do anything to your step child.
I do not understand such desires either. Though, you reminded me of an 'Ask Me Anything (AMA)' on Reddit I read many years ago. The subject of the AMA was a person that worked in the adult entertainment industry for some significant amount of time. Not as an actor or actress, but in the 'behind the scenes' business/production operations.
I still remember reading a question someone ask which could be paraphrased as, "Why does the industry push so much taboo titled and themed content like: just turned 18, barely legal, incest, step-siblings, step-parents, etc.?"
The person answering questions responded by stating that it wasn't the industry that created a lot of this themed content in hopes people would expand their desires. Rather, it was the industry directly reacting to what people seemed to want in the first place based off the analytics they could capture. The industry started to notice that content with such themes really outperformed. In other words, if you want your content to be competitive, then it's essentially obligatory.
> Do the politicians have these fantasies and are in denial? Think they can 'control their urges' but others can't?
These days it feels like: yes, they have them. No, they are not in denial, they just feel like indulging them is for people like them and not people like you.
There are limits to what crime can be shown “on TV” (broadcast), yes? There is also a pretty big difference between a public “on TV” broadcast, and a private interaction in your own home with a privately owned website depicting things that others may disagree with.
I think it’s unhealthy, I think it influences young minds in adverse ways, and I think the parents should be responsible for allowing that to happen. But hey, I don’t really have a dog in this fight either way.
This all seems to be a theatre, because most actors participating in "step sister" kind of porn aren't actually step-relatives. The same with "teacher-student" porn: the actors mostly are neither teachers nor students. I suspect it's the same with "husband and wife" videos, too.
The idea of this, as far as I understand, is to make some fantasies illegal.
There probably isn't. But actual incest is risky and (often) illegal, therefore lots of porn sites disallow videos depicting it, therefore producers avoid it.
Better example then: I assume the TV series 24 will be banned for glorified depictions of torture and violence. Real actors portraying torture as an effective investigation method for high-stakes anti-terror investigations, despite being illegal both in the setting and in real life
Tom and Jerry depicts 2 beings assaulting each other which is bad.
Porn in this case depicts near incest also bad.
You could say tom and jerry is worse because that's aimed at kids, where as porn is aimed at adults who we tend to trust to tell fantasy from reality.
The comparison was then moved forward to ai porn.
That has no real people.
So is that bad?
It's a legitimate question. This isn't about reality, it's about depiction. Real people depicting a thing crosses the line. A cartoon depiction does not. Where does ai stand.
But as we all know, the line is one is violence where as one is sex, and you appear to think that it's worse to depict a normal consensual act than depict violence or murder.
So what? I honestly don't get the issue. It's pretend.
When sex is taboo our brains will often associate the two things and we end up enjoying the taboo-ness. Incest is a big taboo, so it's sex with extra taboo slathered on it. People will want to fantasize about it. It's how brains work. As long as it's in the realm of fantasy I don't think there's ANY issue.
I'll go further and say that if two consenting adult sibling want to have sex it shouldn't be anyone's business but their own. It's not the state's job to decide that they aren't allowed because it makes the rest of us uncomfortable.
> In this case, it feels natural to me that the line for images should be aligned with the line for the act itself.
Why? Things are made illegal because someone involved is (presumed to be) harmed. That assumption doesn't hold if everyone involved was hired to pretend for the camera, or at least not in the same way. Maybe ban the movie industry as a whole over it's reputation for chewing people up?
> the line for images should be aligned with the line for the act itself.
Ergo you think the judge in the Facebook case was wrong to chastise Meta employees for wearing Ray Ban-Meta AI glasses, under threat of concept should they take pictures at a public trial?
Recording devices and cameras are generally banned in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
I tend to agree with the perspective that this is a display of a desire to “reenact” and process personal and collective/intergenerational traumatic experiences (similar to violence in movies) on the one end, and the desire to repress and deny them on the other hand (position to ban; protection of perpetrator by silencing the victim). It reminds me of a psychology paper about whether BDSM practices are useful to process traumatic experiences or if the downsides prevail.
The question is, if we ban such “phantasies”, are we not merely strengthening repression and silencing of trauma, and by that perpetuating it. Or how do we go about sprinkling in a conscious awareness of why the urges exist to go deeper with them without the shame/blame to protect the original pain and misdeeds, rather than just continually repeating them, both as fantasy/role play and in real abuse.
I want to additionally mention but not link to the subreddits full of incest fantasy stories (or are they), and a reminder that abuse leads to abuse fantasies in the victim until it is properly processed and integrated. As long as we shame victims additionally for this healthy mechanism of the psyche we will be doomed to repeat it.
I really don't know anything about it, but I'd speculate that the fantasy is plain old 'misattribution of arousal'. The heart gets pounding at the idea of violating the taboo against incest, and that bodily state is interpreted as sexual arousal. Not that I'm suggesting that there is just one explanation of something as complicated as this.
you are both correct, but what if there is no trauma?
two teenagers move into the same house because their parents started a relationship. they see each other little because both step-parents have shared custody arrangements. they have no biological connections whatsoever. four years later they are both 19, alone together a lot, et cetera. but simultaneously, this is a huge taboo, a betrayal of the parents, a great psychodrama
i knew one guy in college whose girlfriend cheated on him, with his biological father. a great betrayal, a great freudian cuckolding. what kind of strange fantasy will this man have now?
This coverage relates to anti-porn amendments supported by peers in the UK House of Lords. That does not mean the amendments have support from the Government or any real chance of making it into law.
In November 2015, solicitor Myles Jackman said that performing a sexual act with a dead animal would not be illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He stated that possessing a photograph of such an act would be illegal under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 if it was produced for pornographic purposes, but not if the purpose was "satire, political commentary or simple grossness".
What? So putting your willy in a pig on camera is totally fine while you do it ironically?
Why and how would any reasonable human being decide what the purpouse of a photograph of sex with animals is?
Have furries been overstepping the law the whole time?
This is the Lords to coming up with stuff to justify the OSA and further tighten the screws on the internet. It's open season. What it will result in is all porn being watched via VPN, and us turning into Russia/China, where the State bans any source of information outwith its absolute control.
Amendment 297: "Pornographic images of sex between relatives"
This is just the tip of the slippery slope of starting to ban ‘nonconforming’ adult content and a later pivot to starting to attempt to ban LGBTQ+ pornography under similar bullshit morality clauses.
This depends on the courts and purrisdictions, to be honest. Some days I wonder if it’s one big old kangaroo court the way things are going in this dog-eat-dog world.
1) Deciding the really important issues. This occurs with minimal public involvement, and that always to the overt reticence of the ruling class. "Expert" voices are projected downward to the masses, pronouncing authoritatively both about objective truth and characterizing the subjective preferences of the masses.
2) What are often called "wedge issues", or more recently "culture war" issues. These issues are often sensational by nature, and further sensationalized by the media to evidently encourage public participation in the discourse. Expert voices continue to guide the conversation along an established Overton window, but without making the public feel unqualified to give their opinion, just the opposite.
Is this what democracy is supposed to resemble? The hoi polloi fighting amongst themselves over what genres of pornography are acceptable, while the leaders run off to back rooms to make global-reach decisions about war, macroeconomics, and the shape of our society to come?
I just can't imagine a functional democracy where the main discussion or topic of focus for any serious person, at this time, is incest porn.
Political debate suffers from Sayre's law: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." Most people simply aren't knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion on truly important issues.
This is, by the way, a fundamental limitation of democracies, and why we tend to establish republics instead. It's not realistic to expect people to become informed about geopolitics, and economics, and education, and ciminal justice, and 100 other things, before casting a vote. So rather than vote on these things directly, we elect people whose job it is to know about these things and/or consult with experts who do.
War with Iran? Who can really say if that's right or wrong, we don't have all the info, I'm sure they're doing what's best for the nation.
A MtF person in a restroom? We cannot abide this, we must pass laws banning this throughout the nation, to end this travesty and the harm it is causing everyone.
Just once I want the proponents of anti-trans measures to say where trans men should go to the bathroom. You know they would freak the fuck out if they saw a bearded muscular dude washing his hands next to their daughter.
Yeah, most of the people who are so incensed about trans people in the bathroom have probably been in a bathroom with a trans person and were none the wiser.
My favorite part about this reply is how they felt this needed to be said so badly and added to the conversation that they created a new account to do so, thus proving the point originally raised.
Yeah, I remember thinking to myself "I wish the US had a referendum system like the UK", then I looked it up and found out that the UK has only ever had 3 national referendums, only 2 in the 21st century, and one of those was Brexit.
So yeah... Congress is really useless sometimes, but would the general public really be better at legislating important issues? Meh.
Actually I think that's the crux of it. After repeatedly delaying, dismissing, and dodging they were forced to arrest one of their own for his sex crimes. Now they are making more sex crimes to arrest common people for, because it cannot be the case that only the rich elites are arrested for their sex crimes. Normal people aren't involved in child sex rings at remote islands, so step porn it is.
Was it incest when the people who grew up in the kibbutz together ended up marrying each other? (and not blood-related, to be sure). Because they had affinity and the kibbutz community was a lot more family-like than many of today's modern families.
Probably depends on the size but kibbutzim appear to function like villages used to. (But they have changed their position on childrearing a lot.)
Today's modern families and villages are pretty messed up, and promoting the idea that "close" people (as we could call them) should become sexually involved creates additional problems.
We aren't talking about depictions of incest either. There is no relation between step-siblings/parents/etc. And in these videos, every single person is unrelated to every other person even in the depictions. The step-child has both a step-mom and step-dad... Where I come from, that would be an adoption? I would guess the next form of these videos will be adoption porn.
I assumed it was 'step' relative inorder to stop it being incest, and that it's basically a wink to the audience without changing the 'script'. Personally I don't think changing the title is morally relevant so it doesn't matter to me what precise relation the script and title uses.
Which takes us back to depiction, they're all actors so what ever the laws are, it doesn't matter. Or shouldn't.
You think incest is about inbreeding. It isn't just that. If you take that line to its logical extreme, then that means that it is okay if contraception is used or if same sex relations are involved.
I don't think it's healthy for fathers and adult sons to be having sex with each other, for example. Or that any of this becomes okay when a daughter turns eighteen (or whatever it is in your jurisdiction) and her father wears a condom. That is psychologically and socially unhealthy. Nothing to do with inbreeding.
If a school teacher repeatedly had sex with pupils a day after they left school (and were legal adults), that would raise numerous ethical issues. Consent isn't some kind of carte blanche or moral justification.
But no one is talking about actual incest, they are talking about a cheap storyline in a stupid online video made by consenting adults pretending (and actually) not related by blood.
If you have a moral objection to the content of the video, don't watch it, if you don't want to let people consume media that has objectionable themes, let's ban all violence as well, not just in porn, but movies, music, literature. No more Jason Statham, no more Daniel Craig, no more Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson, no more Marky Mark, no more Eminem, no more Homer (sex and violence), no more The Bible (sex, incest, violence, rape, genocide, polygamy, slavery, child sacrifice).
"Step-cest" - a term I am sure has existed before, but I'm claiming it now, is make believe. And I'd bet 90+% of the watchers have it on mute.
It's a reference to the tendency of Muslims to marry cousins.
Where I'm guessing it will simultaneously be decided that it would be racist to target them/ good Muslims never watch porn/ carry on ignoring the problem to the point where most people aren't aware. I only know about it because an ex was a medical professional
Islam does not tell you to do this. It's the cultural practises of specific kinship networks in the UK, especially from Mirpur. And the practise is also currently on the decline.
The irony is, of course, that this law is being proposed while the NHS has been advised (by a quango, not the government) to stop discouraging cousin-marriage: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/first-cousin-... -- the NHS is not required to accept this advice, and indeed the links above show that cosanguinity is decreasing, partly because of public health initiatives telling people what the harms are!
Thank you, that substantially adds to the discussion. It is that in particular that is the WTF, not the idea of hereditary titles themselves, nor their penchant for intermarriage.
If only there was a way of correcting people that wasn't so rude.
I’m still waiting for Netflix to start streaming Les Cousins Dangereux, the classic (2003?) and critically lauded masterpiece of French eroticism: https://www.netflix.com/title/70261973
There seems to be a nuance (which is missing from the title).
The initial paragraph refers to activities which are prohibited.
Peers agreed by a majority of one to ban videos and images depicting
relationships that would not be allowed in real life.
There's perhaps a little more nuance (sexual activity with a step- partner has as an age of consent of 18, rather than the more-typical age of consent of 16)
They also agreed to bring intimate pictures and videos of adults
pretending to be children in line with similar images of real children.
this is one of the most popular themes in pornography for whatever reason. incest titles increase click through rates to any porn video, even if they contain no incest content or even reference to incest
why this is so huge is fascinating. i suspect it is not really about the age gap, but rather the emotional trauma and sexual confusion so many people experience living in the same house hold as non biological "family members". the tension between "it is taboo to be attracted to my family" and "I am sexually attracted to a physically attractive person of no biological relation who lives in my house"
a male and female 19 year old of no biological relation, who only met each other 4 years earlier when their parents started dating, would very naturally feel sexual attraction to each other. indeed, they would share many of the social and biological traits of their parents. yet, this would be a massive taboo. consider the huge trauma of the mother being betrayed by her daughter sleeping with her step-sibling, or even her step-parent, fear of this, jealousy, fantasy.
of course the combination of taboo with sexual attraction will result in an entire genre of erotic fantasy much like adultery, cheating, professor-college student, or any other relationship of power and betrayal
the real question is, at what point does expressing the human condition become illegal? especially when as others have noted, it is legal to do the thing in real life but apparently not photograph it
and if this content is harmful to the consumer, why is other pornography apparently not? Should we ban also onlyfans?
In a similar vein, imagine the step parents aren't married, they're just platonic friends. They would probably be overjoyed if their children connected romantically.
Also, I can just see the industry changing from "stepbrother" to "my mom's boyfriend's son." Suddenly if the parents aren't married then it's not illegal. What about if the parents are divorced? Does ex-step-sibling count? The whole thing seems absurd. These are works of fiction that have not "graduated", as Preet Bharara would say.
> why this is so huge is fascinating. i suspect it is not really about the age gap, but rather
Alternate theory: it's a genre tag that implies a whole pile of arbitrary features. Kind of along similar lines as how calling a movie a "space western" tells you quite a lot about it, despite making absolutely no sense if you try to take it strictly literally.
Why hasn't God controls for ignorance of blood relation and conception?
In its first chapter, the Christian Bible suggests that we are all incestuous descendents of Adam and Eve and their children.
"You are all inferior"
Is God benevolent if there is accidental conception by incest, and it genetically damns the sinless child and multiple generations of their progeny by design?
Anything closer than first cousins risks the health of the child.
The weird bit is that the UK is the inbreed/incest hot zone of Europe:
"It is estimated that approximately 55% of marriages within the Pakistani community in the United Kingdom are between first cousins. This practice, often referred to as consanguineous marriage, is culturally favored within certain communities, leading to higher rates of inbreeding coefficients, which can be comparable to those found in other regions with high rates of cousin marriage, such as in the Middle East."
The UK refuses to make it illegal. That would be racist. The worst crime ever.
I once read the dating life in Iceland can be kind of difficult. The total population is around 400k after being settled for almost 1150 years. Thus, it's quite common on first dates for both individuals to go through their family trees. Not to see if they are related, but to make sure they aren't too related.
It turns out that Icelandic people even have an app for it now.
This feels more like a joke. Off course the step- word was meant to be omitted in order to challenge pervert instincts, so this ban is justified. I can imagine the embarrassment in many UK homes. But, banning a legal relation while allowing rape, animals or extreme age and size differences is odd. I suppose cousin and unkle/aunt relationships will increase. How is it supposed to be enforced? Will there be a word filter?
My initial instinct to this headline was: Why would you ban that?
After reading the article, I might agree this is a reasonable option.
From my perspective this type of porn was basically just porn with a bit of story attached to it, which imo elevates it slightly. Though I was mainly thinking about the step-sibling variety. From a male perspective the stepfather variety always gave me the ick, with the stepson dynamic lying somewhere in between. But I was looking at it as someone without any step-relationships in real life.
Now, after also looking up the prevalence of step-relationships lying between 10 and 40% depending on what you count, I am a lot more vary of this trend in pornography from a societal perspective.
Even besides the more insidious possible effects mentioned in the article, I can see how this type of fantasy can give the (presumably majority male) porn audience wrong ideas. Like considering every woman a possible partner instead of just peer, even in the wider context of family.
In theory I agree with these kind initiatives to try and at least steer things in the right way but I also realise how often they fail. And who knows the trend following such a ban could be worse.
Ultimately, you are only treating symptoms here and ignoring the societal problems that lead to this being a thing in the first place (loneliness, fewer human connections, rise of individualism, etc.)
Apply you logic to James Bond or Call of Duty? Do they make young men believe they can go round killing each other?
I suspect the operative part here is "ick" and I get it. But why do you think homosexuality was illegal for so long? What about the trans debate? What about your own personal kink?
Your personal ick isn't a reason to stop someone doing something that doesn't harm someone else.
Is there some philosophical/ethics work done on the question which fictional crimes, taboo breaks or unethical behavior are okay and which aren't? Iirc Japan takes the extreme position of legalizing all fictional wrongdoings, whereas the west is okay with fictional violence (e.g. murder mysteries), but not okay with some other things. Where to draw the line?
Sex in hospitals, in schools, public places, public transport, in prision, violence, desperation, power relation, aliens?, most Japanese/animated porn is about non-consensual sex. A lot of this is illegal and most of it could be misinterpreted and lead to real life misunderstandings. At this level 80% of porn could be banned.
Two consensual adults or cartoons acting something illegal. And in UK porn is banned for underage already... So it seems problematic that they could just as easily justify to ban any book or video that depict illegal things
Peers agreed by a majority of one to ban videos and images
depicting relationships that would not be allowed in real life.
They also agreed to bring intimate pictures and videos of adults
pretending to be children in line with similar images of real children.
The title might be better summarised as:
Porn depicting a specific set of unlawful sexual activity is set to be banned.
How is this going to work in practice, if I watch a vid that's tagged 'step relative' am I going off the jail and on the register?
Does it have to be in the description?
What if it's just been tagged every which way and does actually appear to portray anything illegal?
What if the tags and titles are removed, and I watch exactly the same videos. Am I committing an offense because in someone's head canon the characters are related?
I know people love science here, so can someone tell me what's exactly the difference here between gay porn and incest porn? Isn't love is love? And both will not produce kids here so what's wrong scientifically?
I don‘t hold a strong opinion on this, but I still find it a bit weird that they are set to ban something in porn that is - as far as I understand - perfectly fine irl?
What I find weirdest is how incredibly prevalent this „genre“ (?) is? Not only is it popular, it is literally everywhere
The article addresses this, but doesn't really clear it up. First it says:
> But justice minister Baroness Levitt warned that cracking down on pornography depicting sex between step-relatives was complicated, because not all > relationships between step-relatives are illegal.
and then later:
> Lady Bertin said she was "mystified why it does not include step-incest", as she moved her proposal, which peers backed 144 votes to 143.
> She added: "Nearly all step-relations between step-parents and step-siblings is illegal.
> "This is because Parliament recognised the clear power imbalance in step family relationships within households, and also Parliament acted because step-relations are the most likely relationships in which child sexual abuse takes place.
I guess there must be some limited definition of these interactions which are legal.
Generating as much political distraction as possible so people don’t talk about MP corruption, Michelle Mone, youth unemployment, or immigration. Anything the state finds problematic for us to talk about.
It's funny that it's still presumably legal to marry your step sister, not in pretend videos but in real life. And we honestly shouldn't have a problem with that given the disgust around incest presumably comes from the likelihood of genetic defects.
It's also legal for a step-father to marry his step-son and for a father to marry his son. Similarly for mothers and daughters. But it may become illegal to depict this. Parliament is full of idiots.
The age of 18 relates to the age of consent for step- relationships.
The age of consent in the UK for most relationships is 16. It's raised to 18 in the case of many step- relationships.
The age at which they met is irrelevant; the age at the moment of the activity – marriage/sexual congress – is the relevant matter in law. Once both parties are older than 18 there is no legal impediment.
That seems overly restrictive. Consider this scenario:
1. Romeo and Juliet meet when they are teens. They are not step-relatives. They develop a romantic relationship, which their parents disapprove of.
2. The maintain their relationship, which grows deeper with age, and plan to marry as soon as the are 18.
3. Before they turn 18 both of them lose a parent (maybe to divorce, maybe to death). Their remaining parents get married in order to make Romeo and Juliet step siblings and thus block them from marrying.
Is dressing as a baby wanting to be a baby? If you indulge someone doing that, are you treating them as a baby and therefore at risk of becoming a pedo? If my girlfriend likes it a bit rough in bed, am I more likely to be abusive to her? To abuse my next partner?
If you play dungeons and dragons are you more likely to go to your school and start slaying students?
it was sarcasm but, on the same note, Muhammad was the most popular name in uk for 2025 at 5674 births whereas Olivia, the second on the list, was encountered 2600 times
>"around half of all sexual abuse cases against children were perpetrated by step-parents"
I understand most commenters are reacting to their masturbatory fantasy aspects of pornography, but I am more concerned about the real life sexual molestation of children. In particular, I am a bit concerned about the statement I quoted above.
First, I want to emphatically state that it is not my intent to minimize the risk of sexual abuse committed by step parents.
I learned 25+ years ago that my wife's grandfather, who lived with them, started raping her when she was 7 years old until he died when she was 14. She never told a soul until she revealed this secret to me when she was 44. I have read an extensive amount about sexual abuse over the ensuing years. What I learned stunned me.
Studies dating back to the early 1900s until when I was researching were consistent: 1 in 3 women reported they had suffered serious ongoing sexual abuse when they were children. These studies were almost all anonymous with most women survivors still keeping the secret.
By definition, this would appear to indicate widespread sexual abuse that was almost certainly not related to step parents ( I did a quick GoogleAI check while writing this which indicates 9-10% of American children live in households with a step-parent ).
My purpose behind this comment is to note that the 50% figure mentioned in the article is based upon actual cases reported by the children - and everything I have learned is that the overwhelming majority of cases are never reported and, indeed, never mentioned to anyone and kept a total secret forever by the abused women.
And it is easy for me to see that reporting of a step-parent is much more likely than the reporting of a parent or grandparent or other close family relative. Indeed, I suspect the a high percentage of the non-step parent cases in England are likely non-family members (again, because of the likely fear and shame felt by the child when the abuse is by a close blood relation).
I felt the need to address the misleading nature of the quote. I am sure it is factually accurate, but misleading for the reasons I've outlined.
Lastly, please remember to look at the next high school graduating class in May/June this year and think to yourself that one in three of the girls receiving their diplomas are likely hiding a terrible life changing secret. It angers me this information is kept so quiet. I urge everyone to take the time to look into this subject. Please educate yourself for the sake of your children - male and female.
Edit: After writing this, I did a quick GoogeAI search and GoogleAI indicated studies show 86% of women never reveal the abuse. It also indicates that the percentage of woman suffering sexual abuse before 18 is one in four, not one in three. It would appear that the information has changed slightly with AI compared to my pre-Ai reading - but it doesn't really change the substance of concern for what is happening behind closed doors.
I’m sure it’s always been around. “There is porn of it, no exceptions.”
I actually didn’t say my opinion on bans. I’m generally against them with the exception of CSAM. I’m generally against legal restrictions on speech for any reason since it’s historically a slippery slope. I was just saying it’s gross and its popularity is a little disturbing.
I feel the same way about extreme degradation porn. I don’t think it should be banned. I’m just a little bothered sometimes by how many people are turned on by that stuff. Note that I’m not even talking about typical BDSM, but things that seem like reenactments of war atrocities.
Just a point of order: step-siblings do not share biological parents. Step-siblings are the product of two single-with-children adults marrying and combining their households.
Half-siblings, on the other hand, have one shared biological parent. Half-siblings are the result of two adults, at least one of which already has children, having children together.
Actually from your history you're for banning all kinds of things, some that make sense and some that massively increase government power. A pro-authoritarian anti-authoritarian stance is confusing...
Children and animals can’t consent and are relatively helpless, so must be protected. Real incest leads to a high risk of developmental problems for subsequent children, so a ban makes sense.
Logically, none of these arguments apply to “step-incest”.
You say animals can't consent, but in the uk it's illegal for the ladies to have sex with male animals. That must imply some sort of consent. This also raises interesting moral questions for the farming industry.
(Your question doesn't make sense, but) A quick search shows that sex with an animal is definitely illegal in the UK [0] whether it's a male or a female human involved.
Physiologically, a male getting an erection implies stimulation, not consent.
However, more broadly I agree with you that laws protecting animals from harm can often lag behind what some might consider necessary. And despite laws protecting animals from "unnecessary suffering" [0] we still allow the slaughter of animals for food; presumably either because such slaughter is considered necessary, or because the suffering is considered reduced to an acceptably level.
I think you're missing the point. I stick my penis in an animal. That is illegal. I stick something else in there to get it pregnant. Not illegal.
So this isn't about consent. And it's not about the laws lagging. It's about the law differing depending on why you're doing the thing to the animal.
I don't doubt that some vegans might treat animal breeding as rape but I don't think the general population does, or consider that element suffering in any way.
Thanks for the interesting thoughts, your questions definitely makes sense to me.
"Children and animals can’t consent" view from _mst is a non perfect position but perhaps better that considering the opposite? Children can be groomed to consent and others animals training to. Here's a sensitive topic but I think it adds to the conversation: It has been reported dogs been used to rape humans. That's horrific for the victim, however consider this: sure the dog somewhat consent, but is it his own will if the trainer ask him to?
This is not to contradict you demonstration based on erection. Regulations for animals are sometimes justified, though they are extremely loose when tied to consumption.
I think the 'children can't consent' concept generally works.
I think the 'animals can't consent' thing is a retroactive justification for what is either ick, or a religious hangover.
I've had female dogs on heat try to hump me. Is that not consent?
We don't get dogs permission before breeding them.
The concept of bodily autonomy for animals is basically non existent.
The argument was originally that it was 'unnatural' but gay rights put the nail in the coffin there. 'consent' sounds good, but it isn't what's going on. It's the same 'unnatural' position, without the intellectual honesty.
Problem for me is. I kind of agree with the current cultural position. But there's no actual framework around it, and I don't like arbitrary rules for arbitrary reasons.
unnatural argument is to be ignored IMHO, it does't makes sense outside our emotional feeling and has multiple (and contradictory) interpretation so you'll end up arguing on each cases and don't have a rule/framework.
A thought experiment from Jonathan Haidt:
> Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France
on summer vacation from college. One night they are stay- ing alone in a
cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if
they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for
each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a
condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide
not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes
them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it
OK for them to make love?
I'm not saying unnatural is a good position. It is at least consistent with the attitudes we see.
Re the thought experiment. The standard argument is that of birth defects, which is obviously avoided. You could point to evolutionary pressures for the taboo also.
The thing is, kind of like pedophilia we've drawn a hard line. You could make the argument that someone the day before their 16th birthday is the same as the day after, therefore it's ok. I think the line being clear has more utility than the alternative. In this situation we're being invited to redraw a line, but where to put it? Do we make the getting pregnant illegal? Not being careful enough? So I would keep the line where it is.
Incest isn't just about genetics. People have adult godparents, foster children, adopted siblings and a whole load of other relations without genetic connections being involved. There are power dynamics and a whole load of other reasons it isn't right.
All very fair points; I was thinking (but didn't specify) of the step-brother/sister relationship as mentioned in other comments.
And just to be clear, I'm not an especial advocate here! I'm just interested as always in establishing clear logical rules that can then be applied fairly.)
I understand and agree with children, and bestiality being off-limits due to the non-consenting nature of any sexual interaction with them but a fantasy re-enacted by actors about incest/stepincest or even playing dead people? Why do you care? It's someone else's kink, not yours, you wouldn't like if the majority of people thought your vanilla sex kinks are off-limits (no more missionary for you, it's disgusting!).
People fantasise about a lot of things (not just sexual), but that doesn't mean they are right.
There are reasons beyond sex why incest (even with non-blood relatives) and bestiality are off the table. Not because of "vanilla" as you put it, but because they come with other costs. As does unprotected sex with multiple strangers, another stupid trope promoted in porn.
What reasons? You don't expand on it, you just say there are reasons why you agree on banning a type of fantasy to be produced between consenting adults, so other adults can consume and fulfill a kink.
So far nothing in that statement makes it comparable to bestiality or child porn, at all, why is that for you? Think answering this can move this conversation forward...
You seem to think that because someone has a kink or a fantasy that it automatically makes it okay, and we "shouldn't judge". If I consented before death for people to use my corpse for sexual purposes, than that does not make necrophilia healthy.
Don't forget driving, the most dangerous thing one can do in the West. It sounds be the first thing to be banned, really, the costs are just too enormous.
Western governments see car owners, smokers and drinkers as a steady income stream while preaching against them.
I was on a bus yesterday which took three times as long as it should have done. An hour and a half on a bus, and I still got in late despite setting out early. That was in a city. If you live outside a city, the public transport is even worse. I've missed job interviews, dates, other transport connections etc due to public transport. So yes, there are costs to that too.
Honestly I think it's a flaw in the algorithms of the various tube sites. There is no way in hell that having your step-sister stuck in a washing machine is the number one kink/fantasy on the planet.
Somehow the sites a providing incorrect feedback to the uploaders and creators, which skews HEAVILY towards adding stepmom/stepsister into the title and plot. Someone pointed out that it's a convenient "plot" for having two people in the same room, but apparently the adult industry never figured out that having the actors pretend to be a couple is an equally convenient plot.
Ok, but the real issue with kids looking up porn is how it warps general expectations around sex. Singling out specific fetishes and taboos that involve consenting adults seems a little bit like misdirected moral panic.
To be more specific, the idea that step-cest warps children's minds is laughable when the larger issue is that 95% of porn portrays women as submissive sex dolls that exist for male pleasure. Don't forget the unrealistic expectations around body and beauty standards
But have porn sites untrained people from expecting to see what the title says? I'd wager it's pretty common knowledge that the word doesn't mean anything in this context, which makes real step porn much harder to find.
In this case, it feels natural to me that the line for images should be aligned with the line for the act itself.
Banning images of things that are not themselves illegal makes little sense to me and feels a bit like someone trying to legislate away otherwise legal behavior just because they personally find it distasteful.
reply