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.
> 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.
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.
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
This is not a genuine question and the answer is very obvious to anyone who isn’t porn brained (and even then, they’re just lying.)
Tom and Jerry is not equivalent to videos of intercourse and you should rethink your life and how depraved your view of sex is if you are trying to make the case they are in defense of children consuming pornography.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
> 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.
We should require all people who sign up for onlyfans to upload their DNA as part of the signup process, and it should be required to automatically block users from viewing the onlyfans of someone who's biologically close to them, i.e. a sibling.
If you have non-biological family (i.e. a stepsibling) you should also be required to upload all your non-biologically family-member's DNA as part of the signup process so the site can hide their potential accounts too.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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...
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.
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.
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!).
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.
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.
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
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.
> it feels natural to me that the line for images should be aligned with the line for the act itself
So, no more crime on TV?
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.
Salient point.
This.
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.
> 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.
> Christ, I don't get the step relative thing,
It's not a "step relative" thing. It's a relative thing. Sticking "step" in the titles is a dodge.
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.
It's simulating incest since they can't do it without the step- prefix.
I presume Tom and Jerry should also be banned for the horrifying violence they show children...
One of these is a cartoon the other is two people having sex on camera. Try to be a little more honest here
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
Amazing that someone here understood what I was saying with perfect clarity, I was really struggling to believe that the parent did not understand.
In your opinion, a totally realistic AI-generated porn should be treated more like "cartoon" or like "two people having sex on camera"?
This is not a genuine question and the answer is very obvious to anyone who isn’t porn brained (and even then, they’re just lying.)
Tom and Jerry is not equivalent to videos of intercourse and you should rethink your life and how depraved your view of sex is if you are trying to make the case they are in defense of children consuming pornography.
Dude, you are the ONLY one here talking about children consuming porn, you depraved pervert!
You're being very disingenous.
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.
What are you talking about? Nobody said that!
So a cartoon depicting incest would be ok?
Not an expert but my uninformed assumption would be that there's simply more demand for "step-sibling" porn than there is for "sibling" porn.
No, I think it's because of VISA / Mastercard. They have a list of what kind of porn you can sell.
So it‘s not simulated incest.
> 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?
> it feels natural to me that the line for images should be aligned with the line for the act itself
Not before we get GTA 6 please.
> 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.
[dead]
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.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2024.2...
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?
It's funny how the people accused of running a child sex trafficking ring get to be morallity police for what adults can produce and watch.
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.
Next, they'll be banning porn depicting sex between ministers and farm animals.
Basically the plot of Black Mirror pilot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate
More like Father Ted.
Not judging anyone’s kinks but when there are so many major issues to solve this is what is being focused on? Maybe that’s the point
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"
Amendment 298: "Pornographic content: online harmful content"
Amendment 299: "Amendment of possession of extreme pornographic images provision to cover incest"
Amendment 300: "Pornographic content: duty to verify age"
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/65033/documents/790...
Who moved these amendments?
BARONESS LEVITT: principal legal advisor to the director of public prosecutions from 2009 to 2014, working under Keir Starmer
BARONESS BERTIN: commissioned by the Government to lead an independent review into the regulation of online pornography
BARONESS KIDRON: an advocate for children's rights in the digital world
BARONESS BENJAMIN: WTF it's Floella Benjamin from my childhood. So this is what she's doing nowadays?
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.
you are persecuted
No, as a furry, I believe it’s fursecution.
Not purrsecution?
M'lady
There seem to be two sides to politics:
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.
>while the leaders run off to back rooms to make global-reach decisions about war, macroeconomics, and the shape of our society to come?
Don't forget abusing children
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.
Incest is not cool for a variety of reasons, not just genetic.
We aren't talking incest, we are talking depictions of incest in the same way as your favourite shows probably depict murder or violence.
> we are talking depictions of incest
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.
Well ok there are a variety of issues going on.
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.
there is no biological incest between step relatives
this lack of biological relation is what facilitates the desire in the first place, and then comes the taboo
Is step-siblings sex incest? It may be disgraceful but I personally don’t see it as such, i.e. not as incest.
Wonder how they will classify 'cousins' given its unfortunate prevalence in the UK
It will be decided on by rank. Cousin sex ok if you both hold a hereditary title of Baron/Baronette or above.
Strange how often the upper classes need to feel reassured the peasants are even more immoral than they are.
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
Baronet: a sort of lesser baron.
Baroness: a female of rank equivalent to a baron.
Baronette: what the fuck?
Cousin marriage and sexual activity is not prohibited in the UK.
And step relative sexual activity is prohibited?
This is about forbidding the depiction of such activity, so I don't think logic will help.
[dead]
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?
> 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.
> Should we ban also onlyfans?
We should require all people who sign up for onlyfans to upload their DNA as part of the signup process, and it should be required to automatically block users from viewing the onlyfans of someone who's biologically close to them, i.e. a sibling.
If you have non-biological family (i.e. a stepsibling) you should also be required to upload all your non-biologically family-member's DNA as part of the signup process so the site can hide their potential accounts too.
That should make everyone happy.
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.
Interestingly, third degree cousins seem to maximize reproductive success, at least retrospectively: https://www.decode.com/decode-links-closer-kinship-with-repr...
I wonder where the line for "porn" will be drawn on this topic.
Will this make a number of Game of Thrones episodes illegal? Should they already be illegal, as Cersei and Jamie are full, not step-siblings?
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.
Royal intermarriage > Inbreeding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_intermarriage#Inbreeding
"What if they're cousins instead"
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.
And thus an institution like a church or a state must track family trees.
But isn't it unjust to by design persecute by genetically damning the lineage of the victims of
"Doing X with NOT my stepsister"
There you go, fixed. Who should I send the invoice to?
"Doing X with my union brother(s)"
—bad IBEW joke
>NOT stepdaughter
checkmate
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?
Isn't it illegal to show the pubic region in Japanese porn??
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 time more people learnt YKINMKBYKIOK
Question
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?
Woody Allen would like a word.
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.
You can only marry a step-sibling in the UK if the 2 parties first met as adults. If one or both was under 18 when they first met, then no.
Edit: I believe the same applies for step-parent/child.
This is not a pipe.
new Porn Category is about to drop… “cousin twice removed”
"Step-cousin twice removed, what are you doing?!"
What about daddy porn
And yet your not allowed to discuss the implications of marriage between cousins in case people become upset
I do 't think porn has anything to do with inbreeding in uk
There’s a clear link between consuming pornography and it programming the brain to want things. I don’t think any honest person could argue otherwise.
Sex is THE biggest reward function for mammals.
And then we invented drugs. Looking at scenes of fentanyl zombies, I think that's a higher reward function than sex.
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
To want what though?
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?
Judging by this, some legislators parents must have been close relatives.
Tom and Jerry should be banned since it promotes violence.
So, what, I need to search for 'sister's friend' instead of 'hermanastra'? 'hot' OK?
face palm
LOL. The UK, you doth protest too much.
It is also interested that this topic is less likely to be flagged on HN than posts about Microslop or Voldemort.
A stopped clock is right once a day. This is one thing I agree with for once. This stuff is obviously meant to be a backdoor for online ID though.
Why do you give a damn on what other people are doing in this case?
Yeah, like how does the collective mental health and well-being of society affect you in any way, bro? Mind your own biz... /s
So you're for banning social media?
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...
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
It was already a thing in 90s porn. At least in the few German 4:3 videos I do remember. Just like teacher / student videos. It's a fantasy.
Though I find it odd HOW popular it is now days.
I don't see your comparison. It's quite the escalation.
> Though I find it odd HOW popular it is now days.
I once saw somebody say it's a way to make relatively mundane vanilla porn while also getting views from people into the taboo factor.
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.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
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.
Good. Our society will surely suffer some sort of degradation from the way incest porn has become the most promoted and “normal” type of porn
It went from being the most taboo type imaginable to the first things kids will see when they get a phone and look for adult content.
moral panic
the word you're looking for isn't "panic"; it's "indignation" ;)
I'm old fashioned, I draw the line at dead people, incest (even "stepincest"), children and animals.
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.
Did those animals you're breeding consent?
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.)
You control other people's fantasies?
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!).
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.
My money is on the porn sites being right.
Incest fantasies are far more common than the number of people who would admit to them suggest.
Just like almost no one will admit to finding a girl a day under 18 sexually attractive, yet somehow "barely legal" porn is extremely popular.
Well 'not legal' porn would be illegal assuming the actress is indeed under 18. So that's why you don't get porn of it.
The step-relationship is completely unbelievable in these productions. I wondered why they ever started doing that. Are people so gullible?
I'm not sure _many_ consumers of any porn are particular attentive to the believability (nor to the dialogue or plotline)
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.
Is this a step-phenomenon to clickbait titles?
Often among some of the first things they'll see period
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