this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
525 points (98.3% liked)
Not The Onion
21253 readers
1960 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I never understood this whole step porn thing, but this is ridiculous lol
Yeah.
I don’t get it, it’s weird, but is it 5 years in jail weird? No.
it's taboo. that's all there is to get.
taboos are sexy.
It's not about the actual relationship depicted. It's that it's forbidden. I doubt 99% of the people actually would want to bang their step-sister, or step-mother.
It cheap to make. The "story" is simple but explains why these two people live in the same house without it being incest.
It's also really efficient, setting up the entire relationship with just the word "step-bro". Plus, it's taboo enough for the characters to say "we shouldn't", but not SO taboo that the viewer thinks they actually shouldn't.
I think a subset of people like it, and the rest tolerate it. So, if you label every porn video as step-someone with step-other, you serve both audiences.
What I have a hard time wrapping my head around are scenarios where step-dad, step-mom, step-sis, and step-bro are all going at it in the same scene. Under what circumstances do these four people live together?
it's porn. it's not supposed to make any sense anymore than Marvel movies are. it's fantasy
I think I understand what you're saying. I hadn't considered that the steps may be from different multiverses.
It's easy marketing. Convenient situation, taboo, but not too taboo. The line always seems to be "but you're my stepsister" "yeah, STEPsister, not real". So it's wrong, but not that wrong. The multiple people scenario is just ramping the taboo up, but not worrying about relationships after the video. Real polygamy is complicated and probably not as successful as porn depicts it. (and that's ignoring the step situation altogether)
I say probably only because I'm sure there are some out there that work. But to have three or more people in a long-term working relationship without costs has to be rare. Just having something like a work relationship between a few people can be touchy, and that's without feelings and sex involved.
Yeah, that just sounds like regular porn but with extra steps.
That's my understanding of why it's so common too.
Though I suppose there's some reason for concern, if you're really opposed to the concept of it. I view it sorta on the same spectrum as things like 'facials' and how wildly popular those have seemingly become -- a filming norm from a long time ago that mostly aimed to show/prove that the guy had cum, turns into something people do regularly because they'd seen it so much in porn. Same for things like anal, or many of the more mainstream fetishes/content -- it becomes largely normalized by its prevalence in porn.
Sorta like how that Dingus guy, Mayor in Ohio, got caught sniffing his step daughters panties. Dude prolly thought it'd be the start of a raunchy good time, where she catches him and then admits her lust for his old flabby limp dick dad bod.
The problem there isn't the porn, it's morons thinking porn is representing reality.
Representation matters, even in fantasy. Just ask Disney, JK Rowling, right leaning "It's ok to be white!" advocates and left leaning "More brown Mermaids!" progressives. Though they may disagree on who should get represented, all parties involved generally agree that representation seems to matter a whole lot. To say that it doesn't, only in the realm of (generally) cis men, would seem to me like discriminating against men -- not allowing them the same social courtesy/context for forgiveness as women and other groups.
What the fuck are you talking about? What does this have to do with pornography?
Ok, an ELI5 for you since you seem to need it:
Human beings on aggregate are dumb monkeys. When human see media depicting dumb monkeys doing something, many humans are inclined to try doing same thing.
Slightly less ELI5 -- groups that advocate for things like representation of minorities in media, typically argue that negative representations of ethnic minorities results in increased racism in the general public towards those minorities, as well as the internalisation of those negative stereotypes by minorities. If, for example, black people are only ever shown in media as being gangsters and drug dealers, more black people will lean into that sort of marginalized/negative 'professions', and non-black people will have an inherent bias against them due to the prevalence of the stereotype. If they're shown images/media that shows black people in positions like doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc, then more black people will aspire to emulate those images / move into those fields, and other people will be more accepting/less prejudice against them in those positions. Similarly, if men are shown a ton of step-incest porn, or porn that depicts violence towards partners, they're more inclined to do those things. Step-incest is generally a huge negative outside of the fantasy realm, as things like a step dad + step daughter is pretty damn close to rape in many situations. Sorta like landlord porn -- these things are not ok, but they get normalised through porn and then re-enacted by dumb monkeys like that idiot Ohio mayor or the dude on the cruise line who sexually assaulted and killed his step sister.
The significance of representation in media is basically an established concept. Left-wing sorts want more diverse representation because it leads to more equitable perspectives in the broader community -- Right-leaning sorts often argue against more diverse representation as it chips away at what they consider 'social norms'. Neither side argues that representation doesn't matter, but rather, about who should be represented.
To pretend like this sort of thing doesn't also impact porn, and/or to say that men are just idiots if they emulate things they see in porn, is to go against the idea that media representation matters, and to turn a blind eye to the stats that show these things DO impact dumb monkey behaviours. And to ignore this aspect of media, just in the case of men's sexual urges/porn, is to do so in a way that disadvantages just men, placing all accountability onto the individual man, absolving the system/norms that have facilitated those negative activities/actions. When black people in the 80s were depicted as stereotypes, it was part of what's generally termed systemic racism, which fed into a cycle of black people embracing those stereotypical professions. We don't tend to hold individuals solely accountable for issues stemming from systemic wrongs. So why would we put all the blame on men, in cases when they've been shown step-incest porn, for emulating the tropes they've been taught in step-incest porn?
Besides, porn writers have just been lazy as shit in over-using that trope. You've got sites just reshooting the same boring tired-ass scenes with different shitty actors going through the motions, and hitting pretty much all the same poses and dialogue check boxes. Demand better from your pornographers. Hell, if pornographers were to routinely show more realistic pickups / ways to meet women outside of just "I live with you because we're sorta related, oops my dick slipped in!", maybe there wouldn't be so many incel boys who can't figure out how to approach women.
Hard disagree. People are responsible for there actions. Not the media they consume. We live in the real world with a multitude of influences to teach us how to act right. Media is fantasy, you can derive inspiration from it but it's not a guideline for behavior. Literally talking to a single individual woman should be sufficient to show a rational individual that pornography is not depicting real scenarios. Millions of people are watching this shit and there's a handful who are a problem and is there actually even a direct link between their actions and having viewed this shit? People have been sexually assaulting their children and subordinates for as long as there have been people. Assholes are always going to be assholes.
So do you oppose DEI and representation of minorities in media then with the same gusto and ferver? Do you oppose all social programs that aim to correct systemic biases that negatively impact different demographic slices? Or on the flip side, do you think that snuff/torture films should be normalised, as they're just 'fantasy' and any sane person should just 'know' that you shouldn't do that sort of thing? "People've been dealing drugs forever, and they're going to continue dealing drugs -- it doesn't matter if 99% of drug dealers depicted in media are black!". It's the same principle.
Why do you make an exception for this particular case? My guess would be that it applies more personally to you, and you find that uncomfortable, so you're trying to defend your preferred dumb monkey content. But we're all dumb monkeys, and we gotta look out for each other. Hell, the UK had a pretty big "wake the fuck up" moment with the series "Adolescence" about incel boys and being captured by manscape bullshit, which is in the same realm as what you're seemingly pushing. If you recognise that the issues presented in adolescence reflect broader issues in the community, then you should realistically also accept that those ecosystems need to get regulated/changed systemically to try and resolve the problem: it isn't up to the impressionable 16 year old kid to make sure he comes of age in a culture that provides a positive sexual environment, but rather it's up to (presumably) adults/people like you to look out for that kids well being, and ensure he's not being exposed to misleading tropes.
No, people producing media can cast whoever they want. I just don't think it has as much impact on the viewer as your statements implies. People may take inspiration from it but any rational individual understands that what they are consuming is not representing reality whether it's positive or negative. You may think superman is cool and want to emulate his ideals to try to be a better person, but you're not going to jump off the roof unless there's something wrong with you.
No, and this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
It's certainly not my thing but I don't think they should be censored (assuming the content is fake, otherwise it's already a crime and there's already systems in place to deal with that). It is fantasy and you should know not to do that sort of thing. Again real life experience should be sufficient for a person to learn that hurting people is bad.
I don't know where you got this quote from. It's certainly not something I said nor do I think that stat is accurate.
I'm not making any exceptions. My opinion on censorship is consistent for all types of media. If I don't like something I don't watch it. I don't try to emulate everything I see in front of me.
I don't give a shit about incest porn. It's the same as most of the rest of it just with different labels on the characters. I'm not defending it. I'm arguing that your reasoning for being against it is bad. Because I'm not a monkey and I'm capable of critical thought.
Never heard of it, and looking it up I don't see any controversy surrounding it so not sure what you're referring to here.
16 is certainly old enough to know right from wrong. That said I agree it's up to adults to provide guidance to younger people. I disagree on the method. We are never going to be able to censor away every piece of objectionable content a kid may run across. What we can do is teach them moral values and to think critically about the differences between media they are consuming and reality. Doing so prepares them for whatever they may encounter and results in a more well rounded individual as a bonus.
Considering this is a thread about a UK policy decision, you should likely familiarize yourself with other cultures approaches to things. I'm "guessing" you're an American. If so, America's not a great poster child to comment on any other nations approach to these sorts of topics, considering your government has basically pushed to dumb down and idiocracy-ify your population through their approach on these subjects. Adolescence was an award winning show, heavily featured on the BBC, and discussed broadly as it highlighted toxic masculinity and issues for young men. Even as a Canadian, who didn't watch the show, I'm aware of it and its general themes/topics due to how much media attention it received. Maybe you're just in a pro-America "Let them figure it out themself! MA FREEDOM TO FAP!!!" bubble.
Your comment about 16 year olds also smacks of American "She wasn't a child, she was past puberty!" type reasoning.
So you're resorting to insults instead of arguing any of my actual points and acting as if geography has anything to do with it. I think we're done here.
That's a stretch.
I noted that other countries have different approaches, which are working much better in general (it seems) than America's current disaster. You basically admitted to not being aware of other cultures or their approaches, so you admitted your own knowledge deficiency... but then acted like it was a winning point, which is a very American thing to do: "Well, I, as an AMERICAN, don't know this so its WRONG!" (american exceptionalism is really really weird to see still on display these days). And your position generally aligns with the thinking that lead to America's situation, aligns with the American right-wing sentiment of "let them figure it out themselves, no social supports or regulations! Freedom! Freedom to be techno fascists!!" (techno fapists?). That's not an approach or thought process that others should adopt.
Your comments about 16 year olds being old enough, is quite explicitly the same argument made by the Pedophile rulers of America as to why it was ok to go to Epsteins island and fuck children. If you want to think of that as a personal attack against you, because I disagree that 16 year olds are old enough to be capable of fully understanding the influence media has on them (something most american adults don't even comprehend -- see fox news as an example), then, sure, I think you're totally wrong, and your argument is absolute shit.
Not sure how you got
From
Missing one Netflix show is hardly "Not being aware of other cultures".
That's not what I said. I said teach people to think critically so they can distinguish reality from fantasy. That's the opposite of letting them figure it out on their own, it requires a great deal of input from those around them while they are growing up. The right wing hates critical thinking, they want us blindly consuming anything put in front of us while they censor anything they find objectionable. Sounds more like your stance to me.
I said old enough to know right from wrong. Not any of the other shit you implied. I didn't say they were old enough to not be coerced or taken advantage of. 16 year olds shouldn't even be part of this discussion. They are already prohibited from viewing porn by the draconion ID laws.
That's because people aren't taught to think critically. We're taught to memorize and regurgitate facts while our leaders try to absolve everyone from responsibility for their own actions by blaming porn, or comic books, or movies, or video games, or whatever the next scary thing of the week is. That has never and will never solve anything.
I understand what your position is, I'm fairly sure, but I still think it's stupid and naive. You're living in a fantasy world. "Everyone should be an intelligent critical thinker who is able to make appropriate moral choices based on a strong internal code/monologue! They should all be smart enough to know right from wrong at 16, even though many adults still don't seem to have that concept on lockdown, because I have declared Education!" is directly at odds with the world around you, wherein people are NOT intelligent, they are dumb monkeys.
Something like Religion, as an example, is a necessary tool to teach idiots that "Killing is bad". You see American dimwits constantly all "Wait, if you don't believe in god, that means you must be ok murdering people and sinning!", because they are dumb, and incapable of the kind of thought you seem to think should be universal. There's a subset of the population that will always be dumb monkeys. IQ's have an average, which means half the population is dumber than the average person you know, and you're sitting there acting like "no no, if we just magically make everyone smart enough to realise X and Y, then we don't need to do Z!". Dumb monkeys need guard rails and supports to properly function. And we're not talking about some higher art form or revolutionary idea here, we're literally talking about step dads raping their step daughters in pornography, the most base and deplorable forms of entertainment, which is consumed by the most base and stupid segments of the population. It's the sort of shit incels watch.
As for kids being 'allowed' to see it, dude, seriously? Even before the internet, kids were getting porn in grade school. Again, you're basing your take on some magical fantasy land, with kids who obey every rule, and citizens who are inherently moral.
Maybe you should worry about how the unfiltered media channels in the US has resulted in your country destroying itself, rather than try to pass judgement on other nations choices to try and support dumb-men from being coerced into being loser incel manosphere andrew tate emulating right-wing drool factories. Like the very demographic this sort of thing is looking to 'improve the social outcomes for' (young men), is the same one that was mobilized as the moron-voting brigade by the right-wing pedo rulers that you all chose for a leader.
As for "I just missed one netflix show", yeah, ok, whatever, back pedal some more. You missed an award winning Netflix show, which means you missed all the award ceremony announcements associated with it. You also missed all the news that was going on about it for a couple months as they were discussing its social commentary on young boys and the manosphere, at a time when America was going full republican manosphere mode. I'm guessing you missed it because you're in an American news bubble, which would've been all "We can't publish any news about this! It'd be negative towards our republicans/right-wing, who pretty much identify as drooling manosphere cucks!". You then basically declared that it wasn't a thing because you hadn't seen it -- your whole country basically plugged its fucking ears and instead of addressing the issue presented by toxic masculinity, you fucktards elected toxic masculine role models who are now dismantling any respect or good will America may've had, threatening to genocide entire civilizations and to attack your allies. That's where your position leads in reality.
Says the guy who thinks handing over control of the internet to authoritarian dipshits is going to end well.
Then this ban serves no purpose.
Porn sites aren't funneling people into manosphere shit. They only direct to more porn and like 80% of it is incest shit at this point so practically everyone is viewing at least some of it. Not just incels.
That happened because people aren't taught to think critically . So no, my position doesn't lead to this. NOT doing my position leads to it, and again, porn didn't lead people into that shit either.
Some of the most educated people in the world, ivy league sorts, were off raping sex traffic'd children on the USA's pedo island. They're also the cunts running the republican party. "Education will make people moral!". Sure buddy, sure. All evidence to the contrary.
"80% of the porn is incest rape stuff! There's an increasing trend in "step"-sexual violence. No relation, take no action, it's fine! Freedom to fap to violent anti-social and damaging things, just like our founding fathers wrote down in the pr0nstitution!". And if 80% of it IS incest porn, then what the savvy kids are sneaking access to is incest porn -- I'd rather they had a broader set of choices, ones that weren't so socially conflicted/inappropriate. Ideally, porn that better highlighted healthy grown up relationships/encounters. Teach those young impressionable porn craving monkeys that you need informed consent / a willing partner, rather than romanticising something like raping your step-sister while she's trapped in some stupid fucking appliance -- just walk up, rub her with your dick, and she'll be down! Go on, sniff your step-daughters panties, that way she'll know you want to fuck and will become your cumslut! Ridiculous shit. Absolutely nothing wrong with porn in general, but there is something wrong with porn that depicts damaging stereotypes and tropes, because as I've stated -- dumb monkeys emulate dumb monkey images. Like the UK's also banning/curtailing Strangulation porn, because of upticks in issues related to it. Hell, that 16 yo who sexually assaulted and killed his stepsister, she died via strangulation -- details haven't been released, but it's entirely plausible that he raped her and enacted a strangulation scene to boot.
Whatever dude, go fap to your incest rape porn all you want. Let other countries do better. The US's approach is not something anyone else should emulate at this point. Go enjoy your rampant gun violence, where the standard line again from America is "A lack of gun regulations isn't what leads to us having ridiculously high gun related violence! It's the few bad actors that are responsible! Guns don't kill people, people kill people! Regulation bad! Constant mass school shootings is just the acceptable price we pay for our freedumb!".
It's also probably relatable to a significant portion of the audience. I wager a fair number of people have experienced a relationship or wanted a relationship stemming from that situation.
Through no choice of yours or theirs, suddenly you are spending a lot of time with someone. From some perspective 'relatives', but pratically speaking you have a stranger who is your age move in and you are both 15 to 17 and things happen.
I had a not-blood relation suddenly happen when we were both sixteen, and we ended up dating for a bit. A bit more removed than 'siblings', but close enough to spend a lot of time together.
I'm sure that's partly true. In my experience, that's just most of what's tagged as "reality", so any other situation with anything resembling a storyline takes digging. No wonder I couldn't get into it.
They're not just making it though. They're renaming all the porn to have incest titles, whether they have anything to actually do with incest or not, it gets more clicks.
The headline makes it sound like they banned the whole step porn genre, which seemed super ridiculous to me too.
Buried in the article is says: