Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members

#21

Post by jghn »

komali2 wrote: post #15

Ok I'm just gonna straight up ask: do people actually like "oh no stepbrother" porn? What's with the huge proliferation of it? I only watch it because it seems like 80% of the well shot, quality porn is step family shit, and I'm wondering if I'm participating in some kind of bizarre feedback loop where step family porn happened to be a category that started getting higher quality production value, which got more view…

When this has come up in the past the conventional wisdom seems to be the other way around. At some point they noticed that if they slapped a stepfamily label on an otherwise normal vid that most people wouldn't care and still watch it, but it'd also attract the fetish crowd. This way they get more views for the same content.

Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members

#22

Post by nemomarx »

komali2 wrote: post #15

Ok I'm just gonna straight up ask: do people actually like "oh no stepbrother" porn? What's with the huge proliferation of it? I only watch it because it seems like 80% of the well shot, quality porn is step family shit, and I'm wondering if I'm participating in some kind of bizarre feedback loop where step family porn happened to be a category that started getting higher quality production value, which got more view…

My assumption is that it's just easy to add and widen the audience to a random shoot? You put in a few lines of dialogue at the start and change the title, and it's not seen as so taboo that viewers will turn it off from that. But it gets some dedicated perverts searching for it where they might have ignored it before, etc.

Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members

#23

Post by _heimdall »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #8

Some ministers had opposed the amendment and suggested the new ban would have been difficult to implement because, under the law in England and Wales, it is not illegal for adults who are step-related to engage in a sexual relationship. This is amusing to me. Legal to do, but not legal to film.

The greater irony to me is how this relates to the sometimes interwoven family tree of British royalty.

Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members

#25

Post by handfuloflight »

UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #14
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #8

Some ministers had opposed the amendment and suggested the new ban would have been difficult to implement because, under the law in England and Wales, it is not illegal for adults who are step-related to engage in a sexual relationship. This is amusing to me. Legal to do, but not legal to film.

In the infamous words of George Carlin: "Selling is legal, and fucking is legal; but selling fucking is not legal."

"Driving is legal. Drinking is legal. But drinking and driving is not legal."

Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members

#27

Post by amarcheschi »

cjs_ac wrote: post #3

This comment section will inevitably fill up with comments from people who have exactly the same thing to say, namely, that internet censorship is bad. That opinion has transcended the good-take-bad-take dichotomy: it's entered the pantheon of ideas that are seamlessly dumped into any mildly-related discussion and act as an impediment to any more interesting ideas. Here's a more interesting idea: because the pornogra…

Age verification system just push users towards alternative websites or other ways to access it

Guess why a friend of mine who is not into computer science was telling me about him using VPN a few days ago

Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members

#28

Post by RIMR »

wat10000 wrote: post #11

"Once the law comes into effect, anyone found to posses or publish pornography which shows incest between family members, or sex between step- or foster-relations where one person is pretending to be under-18, will be criminalised...." Wouldn't the step/foster bit already be covered by child pornography laws?

Why would child pornography laws have anything to do with someone pretending to be under-18?

That's distasteful, sure, but objectively, people over-18 are not children.

Basic recordkeeping laws should make it easy to ensure that everyone involved is of age, even if they're sucking on a pacifier, wearing a diaper, and saying "goo goo ga ga".

Post reply on HN