@wemptronics's banner p

wemptronics


				

				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 18 users  

					
joined 2022 September 04 19:16:04 UTC
				

				

				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 95


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
wemptronics


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 18 users  

					joined 2022 September 04 19:16:04 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 95


					
					
					
				

			




		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 9, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Oh no, that's covered big time.




penetrative sexual activity between people who a reasonable person would think are related, or pretending to be related, in a certain way. This includes depictions of close familial relatives such as father and daughter or brother and sister, and certain step and foster relationships where one person is, or is pretending to be, under 18




This is from the government's guidance page. From the statute:




It is an offence for a person (P) to be in possession of an image if—






(a)the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 63, (b)the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person






(A) sexually penetrating— >(i)the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of A’s body or anything else, or (ii)B’s mouth with A’s penis, (c)a reasonable person looking at the image would think that A and B were real, and (d)a reasonable person— (i)looking at the image, and >(ii)taking into account any sound or information associated with the image, would think what is set out in subsection (2) or (3).






(2)That A and B were related, or pretending to be related, such that A was related to B as parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.






(3)That— (a)A and B were related or had been related, or were pretending to be related or to have been related, such that A was or had been related to B as step-parent, step-child, stepbrother, stepsister, foster parent or foster child, and (b)at least one of A and B was, or was pretending to be, under 18.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 9, 2026
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Last week, in its dogged commitment to a free and open internet, the UK has instituted a criminal prohibition on certain pornography in England and Wales. It is now a criminal offense to view or possess pornography that depicts "strangulation" including choking or "face sitting", incest including depictions of step siblings, and any depictions of underage roleplay. The penalty for viewing or possessing any of these categories is a prison sentence that ranges from 2-3 years. Publication of these materials has a punishment of up to 5 years in prison.


Before a conservative cheered the prohibition of pornographic materials as a buttress against the immorality of modernity I'd remind him it is worth keeping in mind the context. The UK has been on a tear the past couple decades when it comes to regulating the internet. These efforts did not go without results, culminating most recently in the Online Safety Act of 2023 which pushed an age-verification regime. The OSA is not limited to porn sites to ban minors, but also potentially hits app stores, vendors, payment intermediaries, and more that extends the tendrils of the state into the internet.


Feminists and Labour politicians who hate violence against women, think-of-the-children conservatives, Christian organizations, and Ofcom the regulatory agency which, surprisingly, tends to voice support for more regulations-- what do these constituencies all have in common? It's not the weirdest coalition to lock arms in solidarity, but it's strange bedfellows. Public choice theory stays winning. Many are saying.


I can't claim abstinence, but I am not a big fan of porn. I don't think productions involving toasters are a social good and children should not watch porn. However, what I suspect laws like this to be in practice is to function as a carve out for a censorious state with neurotic apparatchiks to punch up criminal charges whenever they feel like. The next time Tommy Robinson gets picked up for violence they can hit him with the lude pornography laws. There will be no reduction of Violence Against Women when so many report sexual choking as consensual and pleasurable.


If you peruse internet commentary on the Crime and Policing Act 2026 you will find a lot of people who agree with me. From reddit to X, everyone has criticisms that this is selective or ineffective. If you stopped there you wouldn't know that some surveys indicate the majority of Brits support the ban, if not the criminalization. To properly do this experiment Brits must go full bore with social taboos, reverse the sexual revolution, and enforce criminal statutes to that effect. Reinstitute sodomy laws. The cowards will never.