can we ban landlord porn? because fuck that shit
what if the landlord is killed and the adult tenants in the building have an orgy?
In fact, in the UK, around half of all sexual abuse cases against children are perpetrated by step parents, yet the depiction of this type of pornography allows porn companies to profit from content that depicts something which is utterly illegal in the UK."
I for one can’t wait until all films and books only contain stories where all characters strictly adhere to the law.
This legislation isn’t aimed at porn production or distributors, they know that’s impractical. They’re mainly criminalising individuals for “possession” which can include simply seeing it online.
The real issue is all this law will do (and I can only assume is intended to do) is enable police to arbitrarily imprison people with an incredibly low bar of evidence (e.g. claiming they viewed the pornhub front page, or saw a post on Reddit). It just enables further police-state clamp down and extremely easy targeting of political enemies and ‘troublemakers’.
Yeah I was going to say, there’s literally entire porn studios dedicated to cranking (heh pun) out step sibling roleplay porn. This is like jailing someone for simply being sent a link, or searching for “milf” and having the results implicate them in a crime.
“OPEN UP! STEP-POLICE!!”
They do know it’s just pretend, right? It’s absurd to make pretend things a crime.
scientology is pretend and should be several crimes
Well the thing is the scientology itself is pretend but the extorting followers for massive amounts of money is very real
Scientology isn’t pretend. Fucking rube. Do you know how much money I gave them? And you think they’re pretend. Ok. I guess I’m just stupid and give my money to whatever. Ok.
And how can it be pretend if the e-meter says my thetans are clear of engrams? Come on it’s basic tech.
Lolicon is also pretend child porn.
Just because something is disgusting doesn’t mean it should be illegal. IMO we should have an evidence based policy rooted in preventing harm, and I don’t see how a bunch of creeps drawing something unsavoury is causing harm to anyone.
I’d rather not have any form of child porn
hedonic treadmill. I don’t think you can ethically have a control group for this.
This is surely bad legislation but it won’t do any good to attack it with the same sophistry that chanlords use to defend their drawn csam and so on.
I genuinely wish there was an effective ban on “barely legal”/schoolgirl stuff being put on big platforms* because it’s literally just simulating pedophilia and sometimes gets used to smuggle in csam on a false pretext about the victim’s age, but somehow I doubt this legislation on nonce island is really interested in stopping any of that.
*I’m not interested in arguing about what you personally like to do in private. If you can’t recognize that this shit being blasted on huge platforms encourages an attitude of sexualizing minors in broader society, then I don’t know what to tell you. The core of its marketing, as we can see from the name, is literally its proximity to things that are rightfully illegal. But again, I must assume that this legislation has no interest in human welfare despite this.
OK, so I’m basically sympathetic to this position, but we have to recognize that when we create a positive law like this, it’s tricky. Part of what makes a good positive law is a clear, obvious, simple line. As an example: 18 (or any specific number) as age of consent. Why is it good? It’s clear, obvious, and simple. As much as libertarians do the “BUT WHAT ABOUT 17 years and 364 DAYS” cope, the fact is, we have decided upon a line as a society and thus we (somewhat arbitrarily - one could make arguments for 20, or 21 as more acceptable!) have decided 18 years is that line. “Age ain’t nothing but a number” - yes, but you have to abide by the law you perverts.
I don’t know what the “clear simple and obvious” here is. After all, as you note, there’s nothing inherently wrong with wearing school uniforms for sexual acts among two consenting adults. Similarly, there’s nothing inherently right about a 40 year old having sex with an 18 year old. However, in the latter, it’s a clear legal issue (disgusting morality aside). Partner over 18, not illegal, partner under 18, gulag. While I do like the addition of “big platforms” here, I just don’t know what the proper line looks like. Are clothes that seem schoolgirl-ish unacceptable (so aping a uniform but not actually using a uniform)? It’s just hard to police, legally speaking.
I want to make it totally clear: I don’t think that “over 18” magically absolves people of immoral behavior. Power dynamics and age dynamics are a thing, but we can’t as a society police this stuff (as much as I’d love to). Similarly, I don’t think that “barely legal” material is somehow worth defending in the particular, rather, understanding what an effective ban looks like matters here. Thus, we have to use a clear demarcation that is arbitrary and brightly colored. I don’t know what that looks like w/r/t the content of pornography, beyond the participation of underage parties being illegal/no snuff films/no scenarios that claim to represent illegal acts (so here, you can’t “say” the actress is 16 even when actually of age - which remains a very clear and obvious line).
Final postscript: this is also not a defense of nonce island’s legislation, I think we all agree those people are not acting in good faith.
That’s not the case in all countries, in Spain the age of consent is 16, but can be less if there are proximity in degree of maturity and age.
I’m not aware that this model has created problems, and it’s better than the old law (13 the age of consent).
13 is depraved.
I know some states have 16 as age of consent but I really think some push towards 18 as a global standard would do a lot of good. It’s not perfect but a 16 year old is a lot more vulnerable since they’re still a minor under the law. It doesn’t magically make you an “adult” at 18 but having the protections of adulthood, such as they are I think is an important legal distinction.
The US has similar laws to what you describe as well (Romeo and Juliet laws) so that if two underage ppl (16 and 17 for instance) don’t become criminal when one turns 18. I should say it’s actually important to have those as well, because otherwise parents can use the law against their kids if they don’t approve of who the date (eg. a gay kid who is 16 dates a 17 year old and after the partner turns 18 the parents could prosecute the partner w/o these carve outs).
Importantly though, this doesn’t protect some 23 year old creeping on underage girls, and rightly so.
Ultimately I think a standard 19 or 20 for all adulthood (drink, smoke, sex, vote, drugs) would make the most sense, but I recognize some people think a 16 year old is old enough to consent. I just think the power dynamics there are disgusting
my fear is that, by increasing the age of consent too much will legitimize older people to hook up with young teenagers. Ex. Let’s say, for absurd, that we raise the age of consent to 25. This means that the law will consider a 24 years old and a 14 years old equally incapable of giving consent, thinking and acting for themselves etc
Yeah that’s why unfortunately it’s ultimately fairly arbitrary. All but the biggest sickos probably see somewhere between 16-20 as the “right” age for sexual consent. However, as you note, lumping people who are "too old’ under minority is also an issue. I do think consolidating things (versus different ages for sex drugs and rock and roll) would have a bit of a useful effect though.
Are clothes that seem schoolgirl-ish unacceptable (so aping a uniform but not actually using a uniform)? It’s just hard to police, legally speaking.
No it’s not, a lot of laws like this use phrasing like “what a reasonable person would believe to be…”. Example from last week:
It also applies to ‘semen-like substances’, meaning there’s no requirement for the victim or courts to prove exactly what it is — the intention is enough.
https://metro.co.uk/2026/02/24/three-horrific-types-porn-made-illegal-uk-27066635/
Yeah “reasonable man” standards are just a punt to judges though. Especially when the act isn’t wrong in itself (a contrast, perhaps, with the violation of seeing an image of yourself covered in semen), a simple and arbitrary standard is better. You can do it that way, but leaving it to interpretations has a chilling effect on speech.
This might be one of those America brain things, free speech is good and if we’re restricting it we need to make the standard as simple and clear as possible.
Yeah, I won’t claim to have much in terms of ideas for how exactly to make legislation, I’m just saying it’s a problem and we shouldn’t be resigned to it being a necessary evil.
To clarify, while obviously I think there are worthwhile conversations about power dynamics, raising the age of consent, and such, what I was saying about “barely legal” porn had nothing to do with the age of the actress (they lie not just to sometimes sneak in minors but also just to make over-18 actresses more “marketable” too, blegh) but with how the actress is presented, by remarking on how she is “barely legal,” “just turned 18,” etc. The complaint that I mentioned was not about whether or not we should let 18 year olds do porn, but that the presentation of some porn is predicated basically on having the closest legal proximity to csam possible, with the whole point basically being pandering to predatory attitudes.
To offer just the smallest bit of a proposal on the “schoolgirl” part though, I’m not saying we should be banning pleated skirts, but we should definitely ban porn labeling someone a “schoolgirl” or similar title that maybe technically could conceivably be legal but in practice mostly refers to minors and is clearly being used because of its proximity to minors, and of course the same goes for carrying this characterization without using that term, like a character being in high school. Practically, this would probably need to take the form of a living list of specific banned things like the aforementioned. I guess it’s a different topic but teacher/student and tutor/student stuff should also be seen in this context as promoting predatory attitudes (though again, I’m not interested in arguing about what private individuals do).
I should mention that I’m emphasizing things like titling so much because there is a huge volume of porn where the title is basically the only full sentence involved short of a remark about climaxing or dirty talk, rather than the kind that has a pizza delivery plot, so the title, the costuming and sometimes the set convey basically the entirety of the “story” that is relevant to this discussion.
When this results in a proliferation of “deniable” media trying to accomplish the same thing, we can cross that bridge when we get there based on the tactics that media uses.
somehow I doubt this legislation on nonce island is really interested in stopping any of that.
Well, I have good news for you then. The same task force behind the step-sibling ban is also pushing the banning of the term barely legal, as well as content including things like school uniforms, pigtails and plush toys.
Yeah. I’m normally pretty libertine about kinks and alternative sexuality, but any inkling that a character might be underage is an instant mood killer.
(It also means I have a bone to pick with certain parts of the Deltarune fandom. The trio are in high school, this isn’t even subtext, it’s just text (okay, Ralsei isn’t in high school because he lives in the Dark World, but he’s clearly meant to be in the same age cohort as Kris and Susie))
Yeah, I’m a weeb so you can imagine that I’ve seen a lot of people (and media) that are super normal about minors, and that probably informs my attitude about some of this a lot more than the porn in question (though some issues are different, like the actual CSAM getting smuggled into porn platforms under the false pretext that the victim is “barely legal”).
Oh no! What are all those poor girls going to do when they stuck in their household appliances?
Back to plumbers and pizza delivery scenes.Noooo! Plumbers have to leave their homes to do their jobs, the fantasy is ruined!
Plumbers have jobs, which as we all know is unattainable in the year of our lord 2026
Congress set to pass new legislation regulating the spacing of vertical posts in banisters
gambling destroying poorer families and increasing gender violence
weird fantasies lonely people get into
(i’m using gambling as a contrast, as it was typical moral panic of the early 20th century, and cuts same across christian morality, somehow the first is never entertained)
If we want a closer comparison, this law potentially makes cousin porn illegal while at the same time the government has been defending the right to cousin marriage.
Is there a correlation between incest kinks and loneliness?
No, that’s my headcanon that people can only imagine meeting other genders in a confined/inevitable space, i dunno why it supplanted something like office as a setting (easy to imagine why mcmansions disappeared tho), probably cameras or some shit with hr
No, that’s my headcanon
In my experience, a lot of people that have these fantasies seem to have some amount of childhood trauma, and also seem to absolutely have “daddy issues” and/or “mommy issues”.
Do not ask me how I came to this conclusion.
You got a loicense for that offputting but somehow still mainstream wankslop?
What aren’t you doing, stepbro
Step Off
Ban the biggest incest family (royals) first please
I was about to say, isn’t this how their whole government runs?
Pornographic depictions of getting stuck in a washing machine will remain legal, but will require a new permitting process.
The manufacturer of the washing machine needs to get a cut of the proceeds, now.
Don’t the people have bigger problems right now? 😆
so basically there will be an office where people spend all day reviewing porn to determine if it violates the law?
The more interesting part of this is banning “barely legal” and schoolgirl stuff. Basically making roleplaying as a minor in porn illegal. This is already the law in Canada, where Aylo (the company that owns Pornhub among many others) is headquartered, and I’m sure we all know how well it is enforced.
Which kinds of “i cant believe its not incest” stuff does this include. Is clonecest illegal? Time travel and other kinds of self-cest? What if they dont know theyre related and its a twist, or they think theyre related but arent?
Also is game of thrones now illegal in perfidious Albion
Star Wars? banned
