This is the Lords to coming up with stuff to justify the OSA and further tighten the screws on the internet. It's open season. What it will result in is all porn being watched via VPN, and us turning into Russia/China, where the State bans any source of information outwith its absolute control.
Amendment 297: "Pornographic images of sex between relatives"
This is just the tip of the slippery slope of starting to ban ‘nonconforming’ adult content and a later pivot to starting to attempt to ban LGBTQ+ pornography under similar bullshit morality clauses.
This depends on the courts and purrisdictions, to be honest. Some days I wonder if it’s one big old kangaroo court the way things are going in this dog-eat-dog world.
1) Deciding the really important issues. This occurs with minimal public involvement, and that always to the overt reticence of the ruling class. "Expert" voices are projected downward to the masses, pronouncing authoritatively both about objective truth and characterizing the subjective preferences of the masses.
2) What are often called "wedge issues", or more recently "culture war" issues. These issues are often sensational by nature, and further sensationalized by the media to evidently encourage public participation in the discourse. Expert voices continue to guide the conversation along an established Overton window, but without making the public feel unqualified to give their opinion, just the opposite.
Is this what democracy is supposed to resemble? The hoi polloi fighting amongst themselves over what genres of pornography are acceptable, while the leaders run off to back rooms to make global-reach decisions about war, macroeconomics, and the shape of our society to come?
I just can't imagine a functional democracy where the main discussion or topic of focus for any serious person, at this time, is incest porn.
Political debate suffers from Sayre's law: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." Most people simply aren't knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion on truly important issues.
This is, by the way, a fundamental limitation of democracies, and why we tend to establish republics instead. It's not realistic to expect people to become informed about geopolitics, and economics, and education, and ciminal justice, and 100 other things, before casting a vote. So rather than vote on these things directly, we elect people whose job it is to know about these things and/or consult with experts who do.
War with Iran? Who can really say if that's right or wrong, we don't have all the info, I'm sure they're doing what's best for the nation.
A MtF person in a restroom? We cannot abide this, we must pass laws banning this throughout the nation, to end this travesty and the harm it is causing everyone.
Just once I want the proponents of anti-trans measures to say where trans men should go to the bathroom. You know they would freak the fuck out if they saw a bearded muscular dude washing his hands next to their daughter.
Yeah, most of the people who are so incensed about trans people in the bathroom have probably been in a bathroom with a trans person and were none the wiser.
My favorite part about this reply is how they felt this needed to be said so badly and added to the conversation that they created a new account to do so, thus proving the point originally raised.
Yeah, I remember thinking to myself "I wish the US had a referendum system like the UK", then I looked it up and found out that the UK has only ever had 3 national referendums, only 2 in the 21st century, and one of those was Brexit.
So yeah... Congress is really useless sometimes, but would the general public really be better at legislating important issues? Meh.
Actually I think that's the crux of it. After repeatedly delaying, dismissing, and dodging they were forced to arrest one of their own for his sex crimes. Now they are making more sex crimes to arrest common people for, because it cannot be the case that only the rich elites are arrested for their sex crimes. Normal people aren't involved in child sex rings at remote islands, so step porn it is.
Was it incest when the people who grew up in the kibbutz together ended up marrying each other? (and not blood-related, to be sure). Because they had affinity and the kibbutz community was a lot more family-like than many of today's modern families.
Probably depends on the size but kibbutzim appear to function like villages used to. (But they have changed their position on childrearing a lot.)
Today's modern families and villages are pretty messed up, and promoting the idea that "close" people (as we could call them) should become sexually involved creates additional problems.
We aren't talking about depictions of incest either. There is no relation between step-siblings/parents/etc. And in these videos, every single person is unrelated to every other person even in the depictions. The step-child has both a step-mom and step-dad... Where I come from, that would be an adoption? I would guess the next form of these videos will be adoption porn.
I assumed it was 'step' relative inorder to stop it being incest, and that it's basically a wink to the audience without changing the 'script'. Personally I don't think changing the title is morally relevant so it doesn't matter to me what precise relation the script and title uses.
Which takes us back to depiction, they're all actors so what ever the laws are, it doesn't matter. Or shouldn't.
You think incest is about inbreeding. It isn't just that. If you take that line to its logical extreme, then that means that it is okay if contraception is used or if same sex relations are involved.
I don't think it's healthy for fathers and adult sons to be having sex with each other, for example. Or that any of this becomes okay when a daughter turns eighteen (or whatever it is in your jurisdiction) and her father wears a condom. That is psychologically and socially unhealthy. Nothing to do with inbreeding.
If a school teacher repeatedly had sex with pupils a day after they left school (and were legal adults), that would raise numerous ethical issues. Consent isn't some kind of carte blanche or moral justification.
But no one is talking about actual incest, they are talking about a cheap storyline in a stupid online video made by consenting adults pretending (and actually) not related by blood.
If you have a moral objection to the content of the video, don't watch it, if you don't want to let people consume media that has objectionable themes, let's ban all violence as well, not just in porn, but movies, music, literature. No more Jason Statham, no more Daniel Craig, no more Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson, no more Marky Mark, no more Eminem, no more Homer (sex and violence), no more The Bible (sex, incest, violence, rape, genocide, polygamy, slavery, child sacrifice).
"Step-cest" - a term I am sure has existed before, but I'm claiming it now, is make believe. And I'd bet 90+% of the watchers have it on mute.
