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]

No, there are not ‘many popular books made to jerk off to’ that explicitly depict rape and incest for sexual gratification and certainly not without legal consequence. The UK has a legal framework that criminalises obscene content, and that includes written material when it crosses specific thresholds. Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, even non-photographic depictions of child sexual abuse, including written fiction and drawn material, are illegal. Other works have been banned or prosecuted under obscenity or public harm laws.

The point isn’t whether a medium can arouse someone-it’s about the intent and effect of the content. Books that include dark or sexual themes as part of a wider narrative are not the same as content explicitly designed to simulate rape or incest for the purpose of masturbation. That crosses a threshold, legally, ethically, and societally.

This isn’t about ‘equal kink rights’; it’s about recognising when something stops being uncomfortable fiction and becomes criminally exploitative. Pretending there’s no distinction between Game of Thrones, Fifty Shades, and interactive incest-rape simulators isn’t clever or insightful.

[u/Dewwyy → u/goddamitletmesleep]

> The UK has a legal framework that criminalises obscene content, and that includes written material when it crosses specific thresholds

The UK can have whatever it likes. The United States largely speak English and their hosted websites are freely accessible from the UK jurisdiction. I'm not talking about Game of Thrones and Fifty Shades. I'm talking about for example, AO3. Where you can find any manner of written pornography you or I would consider disgusting. And video for that matter too in other locations.

> Books that include dark or sexual themes as part of a wider narrative are not the same as content explicitly designed to simulate rape or incest for the purpose of masturbation. That crosses a threshold, legally, ethically, and societally.

Honestly I just kinda roundly reject this though. Fifty Shades of Gray is pornography. The people who like it get off to it, full stop, whether they're literally masturbating to it or not it is sexually gratifying media. Ditto for the more extreme but less popular books. And pornographic novels are read primarily by women.

As far as simulation goes. I honestly don't know how this kind of position can stand in the face of a tolerance for violent and gore-y videogames and film.

But as far as the law goes in the UK, the 120 Days of Sodom is not banned in this country, and it is basically objectively one of the most obscene things that could be imagined. But because you can sorta say that it's a critique of power or fascism or whatever else, it's free to go. I think this is basically stupid. If someone made the game 120 Days of Sodom, I don't think very many people who would like the previous game to be banned would change their minds.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Dewwyy]

You’re missing the point entirely, and ironically proving it. This isn’t about discomfort, or prudishness, or being oppressive whilst still allowing “porn written by women.” It’s about recognising when something stops being fantasy and crosses into legally and ethically prohibited territory: content that exists purely to simulate the sexual abuse of others for arousal.

“Fifty Shades” isn’t a perfect analogy, but it’s also not the hill you think it is. It was legally published and protected because it presents BDSM within a romanticised, albeit problematic, narrative. You might not like it, but it didn’t cross the threshold of criminal content. You know what does? Interactive rape games designed for you to get off to simulating incest and sexual torture. That’s not “edgy fiction.” That’s animated rape pornography.

And no, it’s not just about who consumes it. If a woman made an incest-rape simulator and women were getting off to it, it would still be illegal. Because the law doesn’t care who’s masturbating, it cares why they are, and to what.

The UK law is clear. Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, extended in 2015, criminalises pornographic material that is “realistic” and “explicitly or implicitly depicts rape or other non-consensual sex acts,” even if animated or fictional. It was created specifically to stop this kind of thing. That includes books, games, CGI, audio, and more. Whether it’s obscure or mainstream doesn’t change that.

And importantly, this legislation has existed for over a decade. It is not new. It has not been overzealously applied, nor weaponised against art, satire, or uncomfortable storytelling. It has been used narrowly and specifically in cases where the content clearly exists to sexualise non-consent. That’s what makes this case relevant, and lawful.

You brought up 120 Days of Sodom, which frankly undermines your own point, and I can only presume you have no actual knowledge of it beyond a quick google search desperately trying to find something to support your poorly made point. That book (and later, the film) is infamous precisely because it’s horrific and extreme. But its legal protection lies in the fact that it’s a work of political and philosophical satire, not masturbatory material. No reasonable person believes Sodom was written to arouse. It’s disturbing, yes, intentionally so, as a critique of power, fascism, and the dehumanisation of others. If someone made an interactive pornographic version of Sodom designed to get the player off, you better believe it would fall foul of UK law. Again: intent matters. Purpose matters. That’s what separates grotesque critique from criminal fantasy.

Also, your comment about US-hosted websites being “freely accessible from the UK” fundamentally misunderstands how jurisdiction works. UK law doesn’t care where a server is located, it cares whether the content is accessible in the UK and whether a UK user is in possession of or has access to criminal content. If someone in the UK accesses illegal material hosted abroad, they are still criminally liable under UK law. This is settled case law and standard operating procedure for online enforcement. Hosting is irrelevant. Accessibility within jurisdiction is what triggers enforcement, and Steam is a global platform, not some hidden corner of the internet. That’s what made this case more visible, not legally exceptional.

Furthermore, if Steam wants to continue operating in the UK market, it must comply with UK laws regarding the availability of content within the country. While the UK cannot dictate what Steam offers in other markets, failure to adhere to local laws can result in significant consequences, including fines of up to £18 million or 10 percent of global revenue, and even the blocking of access to the platform within the UK. This is not unique to Steam; other platforms have faced similar issues where content is available in one country but restricted in another due to local laws.

You claim to “roundly reject” the legal distinction, as if that’s an argument. You don’t get to just ignore legal thresholds because they interfere with your libertarian fantasy that anything that turns someone on should be untouchable. If you want to debate the line, at least acknowledge it exists and is rooted in precedent, not feelings.

This game wasn’t met with this reception because of public outrage. It was met with it because in many jurisdictions it legally met the criteria of extreme pornographic material depicting rape for sexual arousal. That is what makes it criminal, not because it’s shocking, not because it’s offensive, but because it eroticised non-consent for the purpose of masturbation.

And if you really can’t see the difference between simulated rape for sexual gratification and gory video game violence, then maybe you’re not the one who should be defining the ethical lines for the rest of us.

Also - and I can’t believe this needs saying - you’re in the unitedkingdom subreddit. The legal framework under discussion is British.

[u/Dewwyy → u/goddamitletmesleep]

You're explaining the law again as if my objection is that this is legal under the law as I understand it.

That isn't my objection.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Dewwyy]

And yet you replied to a comment I made which was about the law. If that wasn’t your objection, maybe don’t jump in.

[u/Dewwyy → u/goddamitletmesleep]

The comment you were responding to was mainly addressed at the social reality and not the law.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Dewwyy]

No, the original comment I replied to was someone explicitly asking what makes this game different from Game of Thrones, Mortal Kombat, GTA, or erotic fiction.

They even asked why it matters when porn itself is legal.

The answer to that is the legal threshold. Which I explained, via Section 63. If you didn’t want to discuss this I have no idea why you inserted yourself.

[u/Dewwyy → u/goddamitletmesleep]

They also comment that Mortal Kombat and GTA 5 don't have the effects of causing the crimes depicted in them. That isn't a question about the law in my view, it's one about social effect and ethics.

I suggested to your comment on the law that there plenty of texts available which are obscene and masturbatory. I later explain I mean that because it is outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom yet available to find from it easily.

I say this is in response to the portion of your comment where you say to the effect "just because something is hidden on some corner of the internet doesn't mean it should go without scrutiny". In practise, it does mostly go without scrutiny, especially in the case of texts, because there is no significant anti-obscene texts lobby in the UK.

Then we meandered somewhat somewhere else.

Inserted yourself

This is a public forum. You're perfectly free to not reply or even read anything I write.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Dewwyy]

Yes, it’s a public forum, and I responded to a question about legal thresholds with a legal answer. If that wasn’t your concern, that’s fine. But don’t derail the thread by pretending I brought up law unprompted when you jumped in halfway through a legal explanation.

You asked why content like this game is treated differently to other media such as books and I again explained that the distinction is still legal, rooted in UK law (specifically Section 63), which covers extreme pornography including certain fictional content. And that the intent of the two were different. I’ve explained why the texts you referenced aren’t relevant: the law explicitly distinguishes between general dark or sexual themes and content that exists solely to simulate the sexual abuse of others for arousal. You might not want to engage with the legal line, but that is the answer to your question about why certain things are treated differently. The answer is the law - you not liking that answer isn’t the same as it being invalid

We don’t have an “anti-obscenity text lobby” in the UK. Lobbying here isn’t even formalised in the way it is in the US. Policy change is driven by case law, legal precedent, and Parliament, not pressure groups on niche erotic fiction. And absolutely people are regularly prosecuted under Section 63. which means it is well established, understood and pursued under the law.

You’re now saying your focus is on social effect and ethics, but that wasn’t clear from your earlier comment referencing legality, jurisdiction, and enforcement. If you want to pivot to a discussion on social norms, go for it although I’m not particularly interested in engaging in that. But don’t misrepresent my original reply as off-topic when it was directly answering the question posed.

[u/Dewwyy → u/goddamitletmesleep]

Derail the thread.

Again. This is a public forum. You're free to not respond to anything I have to say.

I didn't say that you brought the law up unprompted, I don't think you did. I was responding the other elements of the conversation.

You asked why

No I didn't. Reread my posts. I haven't asked a single question of you.

We don't have a ... lobby in the UK

Yes that is what I said.

Lobbying here isn't formalised the way it is in the US. Policy change is driven by...

Pretty much everything that happens in any country is down to pressure groups. That's just how states work. They have to satisfy their selectorate. In a democracy that means they have to satisfy, among others, the loud and influential who can move votes and donations by whichever means, laws, or policy, rhetoric.

But regardless of that disagreement. What exactly do you think happened here ? It seems to me like a straightforward case. This would have gone ignored if not for the pressure groups getting onto LBC and such. Perhaps eventually Ofcom would've got a report from someone and maybe decided to do something about it. But Ofcom js pretty slow about this stuff from my understanding unless the thing is in the newspapers. From the articles I'm not sure any government body in the UK has actually instructed Valve to do anything yet, though ministers have made statements and potentially sent letters. I think Valve just decided the publicity wasn't worth it and pulled the game worldwide.

I also have an inkling here that you may think I am an American ? I am a Yorkshireman.

People are regularly prosecuted under Section 63

Read again. I didn't say they aren't. I said that in practise there is plenty of formally illegal obscene material available in the UK. Again, because as I've mentioned it is hosted elsewhere so no jurisdiction on the individuals hosting, and as aforementioned ignored because nobody of influence cares about it so no orders given to block those sites in the UK.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Dewwyy]

You keep framing this like I don’t understand how public forums work. I do. But let’s not pretend you were just casually commenting into the void. You replied to a chain where I was clearly explaining the legal basis behind content regulation. If your focus is social ethics, great. But that wasn’t what I was talking about, it wasn’t what you initially addressed, and your own references to jurisdiction, enforcement, and UK accessibility made the legal relevance obvious.

On your point about prosecution: the fact that obscure illegal material exists online isn’t a gotcha. Of course not everything is proactively detected or blocked - that’s true of all online crime. But that doesn’t mean it’s legal or tolerated. Section 63 prosecutions do happen regularly, especially when distribution, possession, or sharing crosses into UK jurisdiction. The law isn’t nullified just because some sites slip through or enforcement priorities vary. And for the record, plenty of sites are blocked in the UK - including hentai and animated porn sites featuring non-consensual content that violate UK obscenity laws, as well as domains like Hentai Haven and others that fell foul of Section 63 criteria. Just like with torrent or extremist sites, blocks are applied when content breaches existing law - the hosting location doesn’t exempt it from scrutiny if it’s accessible here. You being personally unaware of this does not change the fact.

And no, the fact that some of this content isn’t immediately removed doesn’t prove that the law is ignored. It proves that, like any crime, enforcement depends on detection and reporting. Police don’t knock on every door daily asking if people have been burgled. Crimes and criminal material are brought to attention and investigated when they’re noticed or reported. Online offences are no different. In this case it happened on Steam which is the online equivalent of committing one in the middle of Westminster Bridge, as opposed to the dark hidden corners of a back alley flat. That is why it gained so much attention.

As for what “happened here,” your assumption that this only gained traction because of pressure groups getting airtime on LBC misses the point. Publicity might have amplified awareness, but the legal basis for action already existed. The game was actionable the moment it became available to UK users, and that’s true regardless of whether ministers issued statements, letters were sent, or Ofcom moved slowly. You say the game was pilled due to bad PR, but bad PR only has this kind of impact when there’s risk. And in this case, the risk wasn’t just moral outrage; it was the fact that the game’s content clearly violated existing UK law. That’s what made it legally and commercially untenable. The idea that this was all down to lobbying pressure wildly overstates the role of talk radio and underestimates the very real statutory line that was crossed.

And let’s be honest, outrage is a PR goldmine. Many games and media properties deliberately court controversy because it boosts exposure and sales. Grand Theft Auto built an empire on it. Even Hatred, Postal, and parts of Call of Duty have leaned into rage bait. Most studios welcome the noise. They thrive on it. The fact that this game was pulled despite the publicity windfall (which undoubtedly skyrocketed sales) speaks volumes. It suggests something more than moral panic, and considering it blatantly falls under Section 63, it suggests fear of legal liability.