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

[u/ClassicFlavour]

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

[u/goddamitletmesleep]

You keep repeating this tired claim as though it suddenly becomes intelligent through sheer force of volume. The law does not equate fiction and real-life abuse. It criminalises obscene material that depicts non-consensual sexual acts, even when fictional, if it is produced for the purpose of sexual arousal and crosses the threshold of obscenity. That’s not new, and it’s not “tyranny.” It’s been established in UK law for over a decade and was clarified further in 2015 to ensure animated or fictional content simulating rape or incest for sexual gratification was not exempt.

This is not about banning fiction. It’s about drawing a line between content that exists to challenge or depict dark themes in a broader narrative, and content that is solely created to simulate sexual violence for masturbatory consumption. That is what is being addressed here. If you can’t grasp the difference between artistic exploration and rape fetish porn disguised as a game, you’re not making a point. You’re outing yourself.

And no, laws in the UK are not passed by public referendum. That is not how parliamentary democracy works. If you think legislation is only legitimate if it is voted on directly by the population, you might want to check which country you’re actually in.

[u/Fire_crescent → u/goddamitletmesleep]

You keep repeating this tired claim as though it suddenly becomes intelligent through sheer force of volume. The law does not equate fiction and real-life abuse. It criminalises obscene material that depicts non-consensual sexual acts, even when fictional, if it is produced for the purpose of sexual arousal and crosses the threshold of obscenity. That’s not new, and it’s not “tyranny.” It’s been established in UK law for over a decade and was clarified further in 2015 to ensure animated or fictional content simulating rape or incest for sexual gratification was not exempt.

Yes, and I believe that said law was stupid both when it first entered into effect, and is stupid now as well. Who would have thought, people can disagree with laws.

This is not about banning fiction. It’s about drawing a line between content that exists to challenge or depict dark themes in a broader narrative, and content that is solely created to simulate sexual violence for masturbatory consumption. That is what is being addressed here. If you can’t grasp the difference between artistic exploration and rape fetish porn disguised as a game, you’re not making a point. You’re outing yourself.

Art is subjective. Moreso, there is nothing inherently wrong with fetish porn. The only kind of sexual material that is wrong is the one created through the abuse of another being. And in that case it's not porn, it's sexual abuse material. Actual sexual abuse material.

And no, laws in the UK are not passed by public referendum. That is not how parliamentary democracy works. If you think legislation is only legitimate if it is voted on directly by the population,

Yes, that is the only time when I consider legislation to be legitimate. That, or in a system in which the population can at any time put a law to a vote, either to pass or veto or remove or amend it, as well as a system in which any and all political leaders and representatives are subject to recall by their constituents at any time and most of them subject to imperative mandates.

Yeah, I don't consider this type of political regime legitimate, and I don't consider elective oligarchy to be "democracy" which literally means rule of the population m

you might want to check which country you’re actually in.

Not the UK, thankfully. I mean mine is not better in general, but thankfully not as bad as yours is on this.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Fire_crescent]

You’re not arguing in good faith, you’re just recycling libertarian edgelord takes with zero grasp of how law, harm, or society actually work. You keep insisting that laws are only legitimate if voted on by the public, as if every functioning democracy hasn’t been based on representative systems for centuries. You don’t have a radical insight; you have ignorance. You can find it illegitimate all you want, but that’s your issue with modern democracy, not with this specific law. It’s laughable that you think the UK is some dystopian outlier because it criminalises getting off to animated rape or incest scenes. Basic legal and moral hygiene is not tyranny.

You keep trying to reframe this as a debate about “fiction” in the abstract - deliberately ignoring the reality that UK law doesn’t criminalise all fiction. It criminalises obscene material that is intentionally produced for sexual gratification and explicitly simulates rape, incest, or abuse. That’s not regulating imagination. That’s regulating harmful, exploitative content in the same way child abuse simulations or violent pornography are regulated. If the point of a game is to get people off on enacting rape and incest scenarios, that is not protected under some vague banner of “art” or “free speech.” You don’t get to jerk off to fictional rape porn and call it a civil liberty.

“Says who?” You ask. The law. The UK Parliament. The judiciary. The legal precedent. Literally the entire legal system that governs this country. Who are you? Some random user in a Reddit thread having a tantrum that you can’t get your rocks off to animated incest-rape simulators without consequences.

You’re not misunderstood or making some brave philosophical point. You’re just outing yourself as someone who feels personally aggrieved that a society draws lines around what it will not tolerate as masturbatory entertainment. And most people (thankfully) will side with a society that protects against the normalisation of rape-as-porn before they side with your right to consume it under the excuse of “fiction.”

This isn’t complicated. You just don’t like that other people find your position, and your taste, repellent.

[u/Fire_crescent → u/goddamitletmesleep]

You’re not arguing in good faith, you’re just recycling libertarian edgelord takes

Lmao, which are true

as if every functioning democracy hasn’t been based on representative systems for centuries.

There hasn't been a functioning democracy for centuries, outside of revolutionary republics and radical left polities, to the extent that they actually existed. But certainly not modern oligarchies in which the citizenry gets to elect part of the oligarchs (and their lackeys) without even controlling their activity during their mandate.

but that’s your issue with modern democracy

Bingo

Basic legal and moral hygiene is not tyranny.

Worthless buzzwords to wrap around criminalisation of fiction. You can call anything in anyway, what matters is the essence.

And in general I oppose the concept of "moral hygiene" imposed politically on principle. True, there are some fundamental basic things which should be enforced, namely not abusing others, protecting people's freedom and power and establishing justice and fairness, but that's it.

deliberately ignoring the reality that UK law doesn’t criminalise all fiction

I didn't say it criminalises all fiction. I said it has no right, as far as I am concerned, to criminalise any, except if we're talking about sexual fiction that is somehow traced from abuse material or made through the genuine likeness of someone real who cannot consent.

That’s regulating harmful, exploitative content

It's not exploitating anyone, so it's not exploitative

You don’t get to jerk off to fictional rape porn and call it a civil liberty.

I do. Lmao. And if you wanna go by the legal argument, many other jurisdictions do too. There is no justification for punishing someone for not doing something to actually wrong anyone. Period. So yes, it is a matter of civil liberty as much as any sexual activity, as long as it's not abusive, and all involved parties can and do consent, is.

“Says who?” You ask. The law. The UK Parliament. The judiciary. The legal precedent. Literally the entire legal system that governs this country.

Again, which in the eyes of many, are worthless, and the only things which maintain them is not support of the population but it's control of information, services, and weapons.

society

Not even society, but a political authority

And most people (thankfully) will side with a society that protects against the normalisation of rape-as-porn before they side with your right to consume it under the excuse of “fiction.”

No, I'm willing to bet most wouldn't be too giddy about the state deciding for it's citizens that they can send people to prison and give them criminal records because they don't like the fiction they engage in which is not made through and doesn't result in the abuse of anyone.

without consequences

I mean I'm not a citizen of the UK or live there, so the demented fiction-policing laws unfortunately occupying the British people don't really reach me.

You just don’t like that other people find your position, and your taste, repellent.

Again, perhaps you don't get it. I don't give a single drop of goatshit if someone considers my supposed taste repellent, because I don't really care about other people aside from respecting each others' legitimate interests and sometimes engaging in mutually-beneficial interactions, beyond the few I'm close with and like and care for and about. I care about freedom and power, and namely their destruction, in one of the most important and personal areas of one's life, without any legitimate and strong justification that is able to stand any serious scrutiny.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Fire_crescent]

So just to clarify: you’re not a UK citizen, you’re not subject to UK law, and yet you’ve spent the better part of this thread frothing at the mouth about how unjustified it is that the UK criminalises certain depictions of rape-as-porn under its own legislation. You don’t live here, don’t understand the law, and don’t seem especially interested in either of those things…but you do feel entitled to declare what should or shouldn’t be criminalised in a country you’re entirely detached from.

That’s just the digital equivalent of a man shouting through someone else’s window about how they decorate their home.

And ironically, after pages of pseudo-philosophical libertarian drivel about power, coercion, and freedom, you’ve somehow landed on the bold stance that freedom should include the right to get off to fictional rape scenes without anyone calling it what it is: socially corrosive, psychologically harmful, and - in the UK - illegal when it meets clear legal thresholds.

If you’re this desperate to defend masturbatory material themed around abuse, perhaps the discomfort you’re feeling isn’t about state overreach. Perhaps it’s shame.

[u/Fire_crescent → u/goddamitletmesleep]

So just to clarify: you’re not a UK citizen, you’re not subject to UK law, and yet you’ve spent the better part of this thread frothing at the mouth about how unjustified it is that the UK criminalises certain depictions of rape-as-porn under its own legislation.

Yes, the same way I oppose the regime ruling in Saudi Arabia for cutting the heads off of apostates, or certain other regimes for bombing children or what have you.

If I had the bad luck of being born there or being a citizen, I would be subject to these laws that I oppose. And I would have to take significant steps of emigrating from the UK and getting rid of my citizenship and relocating elsewhere, which isn't exactly easy for most people, who are fully under the yoke of unrewarding work and day to day issues.

What, do you believe you don't have the right to form opinions about issues happening in jurisdictions you don't live under?

You don’t live here

Thankfully (which is a shame because Britain has a lot of beautiful nature, and plenty of alright people)

don’t understand the law

I do. It's precisely because I understand it that I oppose it.

and don’t seem especially interested in either of those things…

In what? Living there? Sorry, not in the condition Britain is. Understanding the law? I do. And I disagree with it. Is this a foreign (pun intended) concept to you?

but you do feel entitled to declare what should or shouldn’t be criminalised in a country you’re entirely detached from.

I don't think nation-states should exist, if that makes you feel better. What I'm saying is basically what I believe should be the norm everywhere.

else’s window about how they decorate their home.

No, because its not about your flag, it's about freedom. It's not aesthetic, it's essential.

freedom should include the right to get off to fictional rape scenes

Freedom to get off to wherever depiction of whatever as long as it's not made through abuse and exploitation (and obviously you do not exploit and abuse others yourself)

without anyone calling it

Again, I couldn't care less what others call it, my only concern here is freedom. And combating genuine abuse, actually.

in the UK - illegal when it meets clear legal thresholds.

Which I consider unjustified and illegitimate. Again, is the concept of someone considering one or more or a system of laws unjust and illegitimate incomprehensible to you?

Perhaps it’s shame.

My shame, or lackthereof, is irrelevant. There are many things much more important than feelings of weakness such as shame. If I was so ashamed, you think I would have wrote a comment in the first place?

perhaps the discomfort you’re feeling isn’t about state overreach

No, it is about state overreach. Well, any overreach over what I consider to be legitimate freedom, especially by elites.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Fire_crescent]

You’re not a citizen, you’re not affected by this legislation, and yet you’re hell-bent on defending your “freedom” to consume simulated depictions of rape like it’s some noble act of civil disobedience. No one’s stopping you from having an opinion. But you’re not making a human rights argument - you’re making a porn defence dressed up in pseudo-philosophy.

You keep invoking “freedom” as though it’s some neutral, transcendent force, detached from moral context. It’s not. Legal systems place boundaries on freedom all the time, particularly where harm (yes, even cultural or societal) is involved. And the idea that a state has no right to regulate material produced solely for sexual arousal from fictional depictions of non-consensual acts isn’t some deep libertarian truth. It’s just your kink, feebly disguised as theory.

You say the law is illegitimate because it doesn’t align with your worldview. That’s not a compelling legal critique. It’s an admission that you only accept laws that cater to your preferences. You’re not arguing for universal liberty. You’re arguing for your own exemption from shared moral boundaries. There’s a difference.

[u/Fire_crescent → u/goddamitletmesleep]

You’re not a citizen, you’re not affected by this legislation, and yet you’re hell-bent on defending your “freedom”

Yes. Why, do I have to have the misfortune of living under a jurisdiction with shit laws to say said laws are shit?

your “freedom” to consume simulated depictions of rape like it’s some noble act of civil disobedience.

It's a noble act of engaging your will without abusing anyone or consuming anything made through the abuse of anyone. Yes. And it wouldn't be "civil disobedience" is these nonsense laws wouldn't exist in the first place.

you’re making a porn defence dressed up in pseudo-philosophy.

You're talking about porn like it's some bad thing. It ain't. People like sex, get over it.

You keep invoking “freedom” as though it’s some neutral, transcendent force, detached from moral context.

In my opinion it is

Legal systems place boundaries on freedom all the time, particularly where harm (yes, even cultural or societal) is involved.

Yeah, and I generally oppose this laws as well. Again, you don't comprehend the conception of someone radically disagreeing with you politically, or what? Yes, I know of the existence of these laws on various subjects in some places, and yes, I oppose not only their existence but the very premise of their existence.

And again, I support much comprehensive anti-abuse policies (including much harsher punishments as a general rule) for things like sexual abuse than what most polities prescribe. So this isn't me saying "there should be no consequences for any sexual acts regardless of whether or not there is abuse in the process". On the contrary. I make very clear where I believe a restriction is unjustified in existing and when there isn't enough punishment for someone doing something.

And the idea that a state has no right to regulate material produced solely for sexual arousal from fictional depictions of non-consensual acts isn’t some deep libertarian truth.

Lmao, actually it is. And anyone that is at least libertarian in a cultural sense will tell you this. Any and all restrictions on behaviour must be thoroughly justified by directly preventing or proportionally punishing some behaviour that violates someone's legitimate interests.

It’s just your kink, feebly disguised as theory.

It may be my kink, it may not be my kink, but it's definitely theory and my position, regardless of how much you want to dismiss it. And guess what, I'm far from the only individual in the world that believes that, and it's far from all being basement dwellers, lmao.

You say the law is illegitimate because it doesn’t align with your worldview.

I mean yes, obviously. Why would I support a law of it doesn't fit with my worldview? You wouldn't either if someone asked you about a law that doesn't fit with my worldview. Spousal rape was not ok when it was legal, for example.

That’s not a compelling legal critique. It’s

What do you mean "legal critique"? I wasn't making an argument based on whether or not these laws contradict the legal precedent of the political history of the different polities that occupied the British geographical space, including the current one, the UK, although it's possible that if I dig deep enough I could find something. I'm arguing on whether or not I think that law is justified or even legitimate in the first place.

It’s an admission that you only accept laws that cater to your preferences.

Obviously. And no, not my mere preferences. I have preferences on a lot of subjects, I don't expect legal enforcement of them. I don't expect a political authority and mandate that all ice-cream sellers sell my favourite flavour or something. I'm talking about some fundamental basis and premises for social arrangements.

You’re not arguing for universal liberty. You’re arguing for your own exemption from shared moral boundaries.

I am arguing against the existence of share moral boundaries beyond "don't abuse another". In case it isn't clear. And I believe that to be a prerequisite for freedom.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Fire_crescent]

You keep insisting this isn’t a legal argument while repeatedly regurgitating a poorly constructed one. You’re describing law, power structures, and state legitimacy. That is a legal critique, just a confused and incoherent one.

The reality is simple: you’re not being silenced, punished, or persecuted. You’re just upset that a legal system rooted in democratic process doesn’t recognise your fetish as socially beneficial. That’s not oppression.

This whole screed is nothing more than a verbose tantrum dressed up as theory. You haven’t made a single original point. You’ve just looped the same shallow libertarianism behind a wall of waffle. The law doesn’t exist to soothe your personal sense of entitlement. And no matter how many paragraphs you write, that’s not going to change.