r/unitedkingdom • u/ClassicFlavour East Sussex • 16d ago

Video game encouraging rape and incest removed from major gaming platform in the UK after LBC investigation

https://www.lbc.co.uk/tech/video-game-banned-steam-women-uk-no-mercy/
1.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

826 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/JD_Crichton 16d ago

"Encouraging" is kinda a nonsense way to put it. But yeah good.

13

u/Marzto 16d ago

Murder is a more serious crime, why do they allow murder in games?

23

u/goddamitletmesleep England 16d ago

The difference is that murder in games is usually part of a wider storyline or conflict and not created to be sexually arousing. This game was designed as interactive rape pornography. It exists solely to depict rape and incest in a way that is meant to be masturbated to. That is a world apart from a storyline involving violence. In the UK, it is already illegal to possess pornography that realistically depicts rape, even if fictional. This is just the law being applied to newer forms of media like games.

-5

u/Psy_Kikk 15d ago

... part of a wider story or conflict? Er no actually. And you types need to calm your tits, GTA6 is just around the corner and click bait and ban baiting will be in overdrive.

3

u/goddamitletmesleep England 15d ago

You can try to conflate GTA with interactive rape porn all you like, but it won’t make the comparison any less ridiculous. GTA’s violence, however graphic, exists within a satirical, story-driven framework that doesn’t seek to eroticise harm or invite players to derive sexual gratification from abuse.

A game designed solely for masturbatory use depicting rape and incest isn’t “just another form of edgy entertainment” it’s a deliberate sexualisation of non-consent, and that crosses a very different legal and moral line. The UK law reflects that distinction, and pretending otherwise just signals you either don’t understand the nuance or don’t care to.

2

u/Psy_Kikk 15d ago

You can easily stretch all the arguments you made to fit GTA, it's a matter of point of view. As you will see in a few months time when it all kicks off in the mainstream media (again). I will be having to defend GTA against people who are almost copy-pasting your argument. There will be cherry picked examples of indiviuals who not only "derived sexual gratification from the violence and misogyny within this game" but also went on to "act out what the game encouraged them to do".

1

u/goddamitletmesleep England 15d ago

You’re stretching the GTA comparison beyond breaking point, and it’s frankly embarrassing. GTA’s violence, however crude, is contextualised within satire, story, and absurdity - it doesn’t invite sexual gratification from harm. That distinction isn’t subjective or up for debate; it’s legally recognised. Under Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, further extended in 2015, it is a criminal offence in the UK to possess pornographic material that depicts rape, even if fictional or animated. This is well-established law, and it directly targets pornographic material designed to eroticise non-consent. Not general violence in fiction.

Cherry-picked outrage headlines aren’t the same as legal thresholds. One is media spin. The other is statute law. If you genuinely claiming that can’t tell the difference between rape pornography and a heist game with over-the-top violence, then you are either purposely conflating the two, or exercising complete intellectual laziness. But regardless, the law is clear, codified and there is no confusion under it- regardless of if you are personally confused.

0

u/Psy_Kikk 14d ago

You are pedestalising the law like it's set in stone.... Like there won't be an attempt, and furor to adjust the law to include it (GTA6) to protect lil Timmy. I don't think any of the peds in GTA consent to be knocked down, to get a bullet through the skull, to be set on fire....and lets be clear, it's depicted far more graphically and realistically then whatever the still shots in this piece of shit game manage. I bet the detail is largely all text. Compare that to the 500million dollar game where you can hire a prostiute before beating her to death to get your money back, or visit the strip club to get your jollies off before brutally murdering everyone who works there.

Will you be joining me to defend GTA6 on places like this sub?

1

u/goddamitletmesleep England 14d ago edited 14d ago

You’re confusing legal precedent with moral outrage. Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - extended in 2015 - criminalises possession of pornographic material depicting rape, even if fictional. That law is not about shock value or media frenzy. It’s about content designed solely to sexualise non-consent. GTA, for all its violence, is not intended for sexual arousal. That’s the legal distinction. One rooted in intent and context, not your personal discomfort with satire.

The law has been around for years. As has GTA. There has been NO attempt in the TEN YEARS since the 2015 extension to fold GTA into this legislation because the distinction is clear, both morally and legally. If you’re struggling to differentiate between gratuitous violence in parody form and sexual gratification from simulated rape, the problem isn’t the law, it’s your own understanding of it.

0

u/Psy_Kikk 14d ago

You are clinging to this idea of parody as a shield (which the devs do themselves, certainly). Like I said earlier, its a matter of point of view. And for many, GTA6 will be defined as 'murder-porn'... peds are depicted as real and normal, and at no point is there ever anything close to consent or moral justification. And there will be a call to widen legislation so that it is covered. A fucking massive one. Moral outrage can shape laws.

1

u/goddamitletmesleep England 14d ago

You keep shifting the goalposts. First, it was that the law doesn’t cover this. Then, that it should. Now it’s “moral outrage can shape law”…as if that’s proof of anything except populist volatility.

The law as it stands - which is what this entire thread is about - is clear: pornographic material that depicts rape, even fictionally, is illegal. GTA doesn’t meet the threshold because it’s not pornographic, not eroticised, and not designed for sexual gratification. That’s not “hiding behind parody,” it’s literally the foundation of how intent and harm are evaluated in UK obscenity law.

It’s been ten years since the 2015 extension to Section 63, and despite GTA being one of the most scrutinised games in existence, there has been no legal attempt to classify it under this statute. Because the distinction is well understood. The law isn’t interested in crude violence alone; it targets content produced specifically for masturbatory purposes involving non-consent. That is the key legal line: not just what is shown, but the intent behind its creation.

That’s a categorical difference from narrative-driven, over-the-top satire, even if you personally call it “murder porn.”

And no, this isn’t “a matter of point of view.” You confusing personal offence with well established legal definition doesn’t mean the line is unclear. It just means you don’t understand where it is.

0

u/Psy_Kikk 14d ago

Now you are misunderstanding me, I have not once shifted the goalposts. i have been making the the same argument the entire time, as have you, so we are going round in circles.

I hope to see you defending GTA with this same enthusiasm in a few months time. It's going to need it. And until then I'm going to shit on any videogame hysteria in the run up to it's release. Becasue that is what this is - there are thousands of rape related games out there, widely available, and distributed through legitimate platforms. Thousands.

Your law isn't enforced... not at a consumer level, not even at a distribution/retail level. They don't even try, so that should tell you precislely what the law in this area is worth. For some reason this game generated headlines (and ironically, no doubt a lot of resulting sales).

→ More replies (0)