site banner

Friday Fun Thread for August 21, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Appeals to the prurient interest", for the purpose of the law means, to put it as bluntly as possible, "used for masturbatory purposes". In other words, if it isn't something that the average person would consider suitable fap material, it doesn't appeal to the prurient interest. I'm sure there are a few gooner types with weird fantasies about unicorns with hard cocks, but I don't know that an erect penis alone would be enough to qualify something as obscene.

This is an area with complex caselaw, mostly in the sense that no one wants to bring a marginal case, rather than the judicial holdings actually blocking the law or invalidating it as applied to these cases. In practice, that means it doesn't matter from a legal realist perspective, but from a legal formalist perspective, the situation is much more mixed than you'd expect. Even the central SCOTUS cases include excretory functions despite few people having a watersports kink, for example.

And the real test is going to be public indecency, which SCOTUS has largely treated as a separate and much more favorable standard than obscenity.

I'm sure there are a few gooner types with weird fantasies about unicorns with hard cocks

I have some fantastic news for you about the brony and furry fandom. If you want more detail, I can even provide recommendations. But in practice that would fall under Mishkin v. New York, in ways that a statue in public would not.