So-called "barely legal" pornography and content depicting sexual relationships between step-relatives are set to be banned amid efforts to regulate intimate image sharing.
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 inherentlyright 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.
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.
It is arbitrary man. We can’t even state that 16 years old is too much or not enough because it depends on the culture. We can’t even use the argument about people teenagers not being 100% cerebrally developed since recent studies proved that we are not until our mid 30s, but I don’t think a 25 years old isn’t able to consent.
Of course. What I’m saying is a clear arbitrary line is more important than the specific morality. After all, in some cultures 16 might be more free of the power dynamics that make it disgusting. Meanwhile, some 19 year olds might be so precarious in their material conditions that their consent to an older partner while “legal” isn’t moral at all.
This is why setting a standard is important. The actual morality of any consent/sexual dynamic is bound up in so much contingency (age, class, culture) that its important to just set an arbitrary line, and people who try to skirt it need to be punished. We can’t (legally) account for all of this so it isn’t about morality it’s about positive law.
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.
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.
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”).
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.
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.
It is arbitrary man. We can’t even state that 16 years old is too much or not enough because it depends on the culture. We can’t even use the argument about people teenagers not being 100% cerebrally developed since recent studies proved that we are not until our mid 30s, but I don’t think a 25 years old isn’t able to consent.
Of course. What I’m saying is a clear arbitrary line is more important than the specific morality. After all, in some cultures 16 might be more free of the power dynamics that make it disgusting. Meanwhile, some 19 year olds might be so precarious in their material conditions that their consent to an older partner while “legal” isn’t moral at all.
This is why setting a standard is important. The actual morality of any consent/sexual dynamic is bound up in so much contingency (age, class, culture) that its important to just set an arbitrary line, and people who try to skirt it need to be punished. We can’t (legally) account for all of this so it isn’t about morality it’s about positive law.
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:
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.
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”).
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.