6 ms·

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

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.

usrnm 8mo ago
> 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?
- josefritzishere 8mo ago
  Salient point.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- benj111 8mo ago
  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.
  - RajT88 8mo ago
    > 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.
  - Hizonner 8mo ago
    > 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.
  - hirvi74 8mo ago
    > I don't get the step relative thing, but if you do, but don't want to do anything to your step child. I do not understand such desires either. Though, you reminded me of an 'Ask Me Anything (AMA)' on Reddit I read many years ago. The subject of the AMA was a person that worked in the adult entertainment industry for some significant amount of time. Not as an actor or actress, but in the 'behind the scenes' business/production operations. I still remember reading a question someone ask which could be paraphrased as, "Why does the industry push so much taboo titled and themed content like: just turned 18, barely legal, incest, step-siblings, step-parents, etc.?" The person answering questions responded by stating that it wasn't the industry that created a lot of this themed content in hopes people would expand their desires. Rather, it was the industry directly reacting to what people seemed to want in the first place based off the analytics they could capture. The industry started to notice that content with such themes really outperformed. In other words, if you want your content to be competitive, then it's essentially obligatory.
- NoGravitas 8mo ago
  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.
- anon84873628 8mo ago
  But no one is talking about banning crime TV. (And there is a line for broadcast TV that was largely drawn decades ago.)
- therealpygon 8mo ago
  There are limits to what crime can be shown “on TV” (broadcast), yes? There is also a pretty big difference between a public “on TV” broadcast, and a private interaction in your own home with a privately owned website depicting things that others may disagree with. I think it’s unhealthy, I think it influences young minds in adverse ways, and I think the parents should be responsible for allowing that to happen. But hey, I don’t really have a dog in this fight either way.
maratc 8mo ago
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.
- nephihaha 8mo ago
  It's simulating incest since they can't do it without the step- prefix.
  - andy_ppp 8mo ago
    I presume Tom and Jerry should also be banned for the horrifying violence they show children...
    - edgyquant 8mo ago
      One of these is a cartoon the other is two people having sex on camera. Try to be a little more honest here
      - maratc 8mo ago
        In your opinion, a totally realistic AI-generated porn should be treated more like "cartoon" or like "two people having sex on camera"?
        edgyquant 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        andy_ppp 8mo ago
        What are you talking about? Nobody said that!
squeefers 8mo ago
[dead]
beaker52 8mo ago
> 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.
eesmith 8mo ago
> 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.
tbrownaw 8mo ago
> 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?
ponector 8mo ago
Contrary to not banning images of violence. It's ok to show extremely violent murder but not a sex with step mother (especially with happy ending)!
manarth 8mo ago
> "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."

usrnm 8mo ago

> 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?

josefritzishere 8mo ago
Salient point.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
benj111 8mo ago
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.
- RajT88 8mo ago
  > 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.
- Hizonner 8mo ago
  > 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.
- hirvi74 8mo ago
  > I don't get the step relative thing, but if you do, but don't want to do anything to your step child. I do not understand such desires either. Though, you reminded me of an 'Ask Me Anything (AMA)' on Reddit I read many years ago. The subject of the AMA was a person that worked in the adult entertainment industry for some significant amount of time. Not as an actor or actress, but in the 'behind the scenes' business/production operations. I still remember reading a question someone ask which could be paraphrased as, "Why does the industry push so much taboo titled and themed content like: just turned 18, barely legal, incest, step-siblings, step-parents, etc.?" The person answering questions responded by stating that it wasn't the industry that created a lot of this themed content in hopes people would expand their desires. Rather, it was the industry directly reacting to what people seemed to want in the first place based off the analytics they could capture. The industry started to notice that content with such themes really outperformed. In other words, if you want your content to be competitive, then it's essentially obligatory.
NoGravitas 8mo ago
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.
anon84873628 8mo ago
But no one is talking about banning crime TV. (And there is a line for broadcast TV that was largely drawn decades ago.)
therealpygon 8mo ago
There are limits to what crime can be shown “on TV” (broadcast), yes? There is also a pretty big difference between a public “on TV” broadcast, and a private interaction in your own home with a privately owned website depicting things that others may disagree with. I think it’s unhealthy, I think it influences young minds in adverse ways, and I think the parents should be responsible for allowing that to happen. But hey, I don’t really have a dog in this fight either way.

maratc 8mo ago

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.

nephihaha 8mo ago
It's simulating incest since they can't do it without the step- prefix.
- andy_ppp 8mo ago
  I presume Tom and Jerry should also be banned for the horrifying violence they show children...
  - edgyquant 8mo ago
    One of these is a cartoon the other is two people having sex on camera. Try to be a little more honest here
    - maratc 8mo ago
      In your opinion, a totally realistic AI-generated porn should be treated more like "cartoon" or like "two people having sex on camera"?
      - edgyquant 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        andy_ppp 8mo ago
        What are you talking about? Nobody said that!

squeefers 8mo ago

[dead]

beaker52 8mo ago

> 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.

eesmith 8mo ago

> 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.

tbrownaw 8mo ago

> 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?

ponector 8mo ago

Contrary to not banning images of violence. It's ok to show extremely violent murder but not a sex with step mother (especially with happy ending)!

manarth 8mo ago

> "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."