50 comments

[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 65.1 ms ] thread
[flagged]
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 line for images should be aligned with the line for the act itself"
The headline from the LBC article is slightly at odds with their first paragraph:

    > "Peers agreed by a majority of one to ban videos and images depicting relationships that would not be allowed in real life."
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
Next, they'll be banning porn depicting sex between ministers and farm animals.
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.

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.

It's time more people learnt YKINMKBYKIOK
>NOT stepdaughter

checkmate

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.
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.
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.
(comment deleted)
I do 't think porn has anything to do with inbreeding in uk
What about daddy porn
And yet your not allowed to discuss the implications of marriage between cousins in case people become upset
It is also interested that this topic is less likely to be flagged on HN than posts about Microslop or Voldemort.
(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)
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?