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
Amendment 297: "Pornographic images of sex between relatives"
Amendment 298: "Pornographic content: online harmful content"
Amendment 299: "Amendment of possession of extreme pornographic images provision to cover incest"
Amendment 300: "Pornographic content: duty to verify age"
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/65033/documents/790...
Who moved these amendments?
BARONESS LEVITT: principal legal advisor to the director of public prosecutions from 2009 to 2014, working under Keir Starmer
BARONESS BERTIN: commissioned by the Government to lead an independent review into the regulation of online pornography
BARONESS KIDRON: an advocate for children's rights in the digital world
BARONESS BENJAMIN: WTF it's Floella Benjamin from my childhood. So this is what she's doing nowadays?
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.
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.
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.
It's weird how people are so invested in invading bathroom spaces of the opposite sex. It's like they have no concept of boundaries.
That said the last time British people voted on a serious issue they voted for Brexit so maybe these diversions are justified.
So yeah... Congress is really useless sometimes, but would the general public really be better at legislating important issues? Meh.
Don't forget abusing children
For me it would be just genes.
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.
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.
The "step" thing is a get out clause. In the Netherlands, I've seen stuff advertised which doesn't even bother with that.
Adult incest is opposed mainly due to genetic risks in offspring and blood relation issues.
Otherwise, consenting adults should be free to do as they please.
If the "stepdad" and "stepdaughter" met as strangers, you wouldn’t care.
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.
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.
this lack of biological relation is what facilitates the desire in the first place, and then comes the taboo
Incest isn't just "biological" as you put it, it is a matter of your relation to other people.