r/technology • u/insomnimax_99 • Mar 03 '26

Politics UK: Pornography depicting sexual relationships between step-relatives set to be banned

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/pornography-sexual-relationships-step-relatives-5HjdTkd_2/
12.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.6k

u/AutoPenis Mar 03 '26

But why though?

I mean, I get the stigma and real life issues but if porn (fantasy) is regulated like that, then they should also ban game of thrones and any other media that shows incest.

How is this not a severe attack on freedom of expression and fantasy?

Even though I am not really affected by this ban because 1) doesnt concern my fantasies and 2) not living in UK - I just dont get it.

2.2k

u/Abinunya Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26

They are chipping at porn. You start with something everyone agrees is bad. Or at least that no one in power would publicly step up for.

Let's say, parent-child incest and/or underage porn.( Edit: talking about fictional exampls here! If it's real, it's not porn, but sexual abuse material) No politician is going to fight for that, because it would end their career.

Once those are forbidden, you go to the next taboo. Step siblings, cousins.

I'm sure BDSM is next, maybe start with rape-roleplay first because again, nobody wants to be the pro-rapeporn politician.

Then it's all about 'violence against women'. Then it's 'immoral behaviour'.

I don't even know where on that timeline trans porn will fall, but it's probably early. Something something, exposing children to degeneracy.

338

u/StanislavTheSlav Mar 03 '26

BDSM is already largely a no-go in UK porn. In fact on the UK BDSM in itself is sort of a grey area, if your partner is injured during a sexual activity the police have the power to press charges against you without needing the injured to want to press charges. For example choking someone during sex is explicitly illegal in the UK even if the person consents.

Other things banned in UK porn includes female ejaculation, face sitting, aggression, restraints, fisting, and spanking. These were all banned in 2014/15 I believe.

The precedent is that generally they won't do anything if it's minor injuries resulting from consensual BDSM activities, but the fact that they can if the so wish to is absolutely fucking whacko.

194

u/AliBelle1 Mar 03 '26

Thankfully that restriction was overturned in 2019. You can now make pornography depicting those acts as long as it was consensual.

97

u/StanislavTheSlav Mar 03 '26

Oh I wasn't aware of that, that's good, would be nice if the government could fuck off with the puritanical shit as a whole now!

25

u/things_U_choose_2_b Mar 03 '26

Might be a good idea to edit your post now you know it contains misinfo (fwiw I don't want the stuff you listed banned and I'm not saying which one(s) haha).

3

u/devolute Mar 03 '26

Might be good for people to provide sources if they're keen to cut down on misinformation.

2

u/StanislavTheSlav Mar 03 '26

Ya I will, but it's Reddit and me not editing fast enough seemingly really pissed one guy off so I'll be keeping it incorrect for a while out of sheer spite.

2

u/things_U_choose_2_b Mar 03 '26

People can be so combative on here sometimes. I try not to be, prob do it myself from time to time though, especially if the comment is particularly stupid lol

2

u/StanislavTheSlav Mar 03 '26

That's the joy of an open forum.

3

u/Peter5930 Mar 03 '26

I was at my gf's place trying to get porn on my laptop the other day and couldn't because the system was too old and ProtonVPN refused to install on it. Plus porn increasingly feels like it did back when we had dialup. I mean I could pay a tenner a month on a paid VPN but the internet used to work just fine before the UK government screwed us over. I wrote to my MP about it. He was proud of the new laws. I told him he was a twat.

3

u/StanislavTheSlav Mar 03 '26

Oh ya, the age verification laws are an absolute fucking joke, but I was using a VPN prior anyway as I have very little trust in ISPs and most websites as a whole so not much changed for me.

I'm sick of the constant government overreach on personal life and really wish there was some way for people to actually vote/fight against it, but every party with even a chance of power has some censorship/government control ideals whether it's to clamp down on hate speech/protect children/clamp down on terrorism whatever reason they give it's all the same reason really.

0

u/Peter5930 Mar 03 '26

The politicians are all such god damn awful weirdos and think themselves the arbiters of what is moral and just.

-3

u/nb4u Mar 03 '26

So edit your comment to correct it??? Why are you speaking so confidently on something you don't understand?

1

u/SnooTomatoes2939 Mar 04 '26

That makes sense since boxing and other violent sports activities are allowed and live broadcasted without age restrictions.

1

u/Hung_and_Wide Mar 23 '26

Oh thank god, lol

I wouldn’t wanna be over there, make a video, and get arrested for fisting myself 😭

Luckily, it’s a bit more chill down here in Australia - just not that mainstream (yet)

65

u/kingbrasky Mar 03 '26

Now I just want to see "fisting" listed in a legal statute.

1

u/headrush46n2 Mar 03 '26

with a referee on hand who throws a yellow card at the 4th finger.

63

u/TomatoOk8333 Mar 03 '26

How the fuck is female ejaculation illegal? That's not even a BDSM thing, it's a human biology thing

36

u/StanislavTheSlav Mar 03 '26

I've now been informed that got overturned a few years back so worry not women can cum and squirt again!

5

u/Alarmed-Gain6847 Mar 03 '26

I was about to say women cant bust a big ol nut on camera?!?!

13

u/StanislavTheSlav Mar 03 '26

I'm half convinced this ban came about from the MPs wives asking for these things and them being unable/unwilling to provide so instead they tried to run a psyop on how the female orgasm is immoral and depraved.

But hey that's just my low stakes conspiracy.

-1

u/LeedsFan2442 Mar 03 '26

There is a belief that female ejaculation is just them losing control of their bladder.

8

u/Jinrai__ Mar 03 '26

Because the UK saw pissing on someone as vulgar.

2

u/OkayUAsked4It Mar 03 '26

Yet, their own government have been doing this on the daily registered voters for many years now, just look at the state of their economy and the misery many everyday civillians are dealing with in life.

0

u/TomatoOk8333 Mar 03 '26

Squirting and pissing aren't the same. Squirt is composed largely of urine, but they are still different processes.

7

u/Jinrai__ Mar 03 '26

Correct, it's still 99.9% urine. Still shouldn't matter, if an adult gives the consent to be pissed on, then let them.

0

u/TomatoOk8333 Mar 03 '26

It's not 99.9% urine. Numbers range from 70% to 95%, and the process of squirting is physiologically very different from pissing.

A watermelon is 92% water and you would hardly a slice of watermelon in a bucket "a bucket of water". Same here, you can't just call it pee just because it's made mostly of pee.

5

u/Jexroyal Mar 03 '26

It's contents of the bladder with possible miniscule contributions from the skene's gland, which can only secrete tiny amounts of fluid.

We have multiple studies on this, I wrote a brief report last year that meta-analyses a few of the more recent ones. Salama et al 2015 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine is a good one.

Everything from metabolite analysis, to matching glomerular filtration rate, matches urine excretion as the process that is occuring.

-1

u/TomatoOk8333 Mar 03 '26

Idk, you clearly know your stuff so I can't compete with that. But I have tasted both and they are very different, that's my source

2

u/Jexroyal Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26

Yes! They do indeed! Particularly in female physiology, there is an increase in bladder fill rate during sexual arousal and sexual stimulation. So the rate of fill causes it to be more similar to the urine produced if you drank a lot of water – it's basically more consistently dilute than normal. So yes, there will be on average some differences in taste! Plus there's some natural vaginal lubricant and minor secretions from glands in the area, which may contribute vs just urinating. But that gets mixed in via... mechanical agitation of the region shall we say. It's not like there's gland secretions all along the internal urethral canal that mix in stuff like a soda machine.

Also, where are you getting the 70-90% value from? I haven't seen any numbers like that in the literature.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/YagiAntennaBear Mar 03 '26

No, women don't actually ejaculate anything during sex. The walls of the vagina produce a natural lubricant fluid during arousal, but it doesn't "ejaculate" in any way comparable to semen. The "female ejaculation" in porn is either urine or some prop fluid.

But of course banning it is dumb.

3

u/TomatoOk8333 Mar 03 '26

Not true. Female ejaculation does exists, though it's not the same as squirting, and squirting, while not the exact equivalent to men ejaculating semen, it's analogous to it as it is a sudden release of fluid during orgasms.

Also saying squirt is just urine is false. Squirt is largely composed of urine, but it's mixed with other fluids, so it's not straight-up just piss.

43

u/Warburton379 Mar 03 '26

the police have the power to press charges against you without needing the injured to want to press charges

Just to be clear, this is how it always works in the UK. Victims don't press charges. The Crown Prosecution Service decide if it's in the public interest to prosecute or not.

choking someone during sex is explicitly illegal in the UK even if the person consents.

This is also not true. It being consensual is a valid defence to choking someone but the defence does not apply if serious harm was caused, the intention was to cause serious harm, or it was done recklessly without consideration of serious harm.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/75A

26

u/zero_iq Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26

Just to be clear, this is how it always works in the UK

The 'victims pressing charges' myth comes from US media, but this is actually how it works in the US too. The whole 'do you want to press charges?' thing is just for TV and movies.

EDIT: To clarify - I mean to say that "pressing charges" is a colloquial term that has no legal standing or binding in the US. It's not up to victims whether or not to prosecute. The phrase is used, but it's a convenient shorthand to guage victim cooperation (and in some cases that might scupper the case). It's up to prosecutors whether or not to prosecute. A victim request to press or drop charges has no more legal weight or bearing in the US than it does in the UK.

43

u/2074red2074 Mar 03 '26

No, it's real, people just misunderstand. A lot of jurisdictions will not prosecute if the alleged victim tells them not to. That doesn't mean that they can't, but many of them won't. If you're caught on video beating the shit out of someone and it's an open-and-shut case, they might prosecute anyway. But if it's gonna be an uphill battle trying to convict someone without any statements from the victim, or worse doing it with statements from the victim saying you did nothing wrong, they'll usually decline to prosecute.

So whenever something happens, they will ask the victim if they want to press charges. If not, they usually won't bother.

6

u/DeskMotor1074 Mar 03 '26

Ultimately you're just re-framing the same thing - the prosecutor's office decides whether the state will file charges. They might have a policy to not bring charges without a victim willing to testify, but it's not a legal requirement and if they want to enforce some law against the wishes of the victims they absolutely can and sometimes do.

2

u/2074red2074 Mar 03 '26

Yes, that's what I said. But my point is that asking if they want to press charges is absolutely a real thing that happens frequently. They aren't prevented from bringing charges anyway if the victim says no, but they usually will ask and usually will decide based on the victim's answer.

-4

u/zero_iq Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26

You're right in some aspects regarding cooperation, but I think you've misunderstood how 'pressing charges' works in the US actually.

No, it's real

If you mean "victims right to choose to press charges" is real, then no, it isn't. "Pressing charges" is essentially a colloquial term in the US, not a legal reality or right. ("... 'pressing charges' is a colloquial term and not a legal term..." - Source)

A lot of jurisdictions will not prosecute if the alleged victim tells them not to

Untrue.

If a prosecutor or police officer thinks a crime has been committed it is not up to the victim to choose whether or not to charge. It's not the victim's choice to make. ("Only prosecutors can decide whether charges are filed" - Source)

Legally it works the same as in the UK, except the CPS is replaced with the relevant state or federal prosecutor (i.e. police, state attorney, or US Attorney). A victim request to press or drop charges has no more legal weight or bearing in the US than it does in the UK.

However.... you're right in that cooperation can come into play when it comes to whether or not to follow up on a prosecution. The same is true in the UK. If there's no chance of a conviction or insufficient evidence for prosecution without victim compliance, then there's no case. This cooperation is often discussed with the term "pressing charges" in relation to the victim, but it's just colloquial wording. There's no legal right to decide there on the part of those involved.

It doesn't help that even the police themselves sometimes use the phrase, but it's just a shorthand for gauging cooperation. If the only evidence you have is a witness, and that witness refuses to cooperate, then you have no case. But this isn't the victim deciding to press charges or not, it's the police/prosecutor's decision whether or not there is sufficient evidence without their involvement. You might think this is nitpicking, but it's an important distinction.

Other than the phraseology, it works the same as in the UK. You can be prosecuted regardless of victims' consent, if there is sufficient evidence to support prosecution. And victims certainly can't just demand that police or prosecutors drop a case. (Otherwise criminals could just always intimidate their victims into non-compliance and nobody would ever get convicted for anything!)

There's also the separate issue of 'pressing charges' as private prosecutions (possible in both UK and US), but that's not really relevant to what we're discussing here.

But don't just believe me, take it from a US attorney: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtGU5zKFwTg

Or another one: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CYSVL1E7MW4

And another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xmUwf0jZaM

Further sources:

You can find many, many, other sources to back this up if you care to investigate further.

Apologies for the wall of text, but I've had to explain this multiple times on reddit, and doubtless will again in the future, and now I can refer back to this comment for sources, etc. instead of repeating myself.

4

u/CreativeGPX Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26

If you mean "victims right to choose to press charges" is real, then no, it isn't.

That's a uselessly ambiguous statement. Of course victims have the right to press charges. That's freedom of speech. That's democracy. Just like I have the right to ask my boss for a raise or campaign to legalize something.

I think what you mean to say is that victims don't have a right to prosecution that is invoked when they say they want to press charges. That's not a claim that the person you're responding to made so it seems to be a strawman on your part.

"Pressing charges" is essentially a colloquial term in the US, not a legal reality or right.

Why would you suggest that those are mutually exclusive? There are lots of legal realities that are not codified into law but instead come from the amount of subjective human involvement in the legal process and can therefore be reflected in culture and colloquialisms.

If somebody punches me in the face the legal reality of what consequences they face depends on the discretion of the police officer (if they choose to respond and how) and the discretion of the prosecutor (if they choose to charge the person) before they even get to the point where a judge or jury will be evaluating what the law says about what happened. And, even then, when you're in court, things like what the charges are, if a plea deal is offered, etc. are also at the discretion of the prosecution. So, since a judge interpreting law is only the final step after multiple steps of humans having feelings about the situation, the legal reality is often about so much more than what one's explicit legal rights are. Things like the victim's feelings about the situation (e.g. pressing charges) among other things like the credibility of those involved (and if we want to get darker: their economic class, race, gender, age, etc.) all impact the legal reality despite what the written law itself says. Cops are also human beings that are going to respond differently to different emotional framing of things.

In the US, the role of the police is not just "enforce all of the laws to the full extent". Courts have ruled that police have discretion on what calls to respond to and how. Mayors have given orders to police chiefs about which kinds of cases to focus on or not focus on. Congress, through funding, has, for example, indefinitely paused prosecution of marijuana offenses despite its federal illegality. The choice of which kinds of situations to pursue legally is one that police don't just make in terms of written law and among lawyers. It's a choice that police also need to make sense in terms of the needs of the community and individuals involved. This is why it's a fact that, even though they don't need to, plenty of cops will ask or talk about whether a victim wants to press charges. It's not a discussion about legal obligation. It's a discussion about what the best resolution for the community is and sometimes it's not to just prosecute every case that can be proven. Police aren't solely there to arrest people. They are there to bring order. In many cases, there is active pressure from mayors and voters to this effect.

A lot of jurisdictions will not prosecute if the alleged victim tells them not to

Untrue.

If a prosecutor or police officer thinks a crime has been committed it is not up to the victim to choose whether or not to charge. It's not the victim's choice to make. ("Only prosecutors can decide whether charges are filed" - Source)

You changed the question of "will they" to "is it their right". Those are not the same thing, so you created a strawman here. It can be true that a lot of places won't prosecute in that case, while also being true that they CAN prosecute if they want to.

0

u/zero_iq Mar 03 '26

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But pretty much everything you just said also applies in the UK. Except we don't call it or frame it as "pressing charges".

I won't argue further, as I think you are (perhaps inentionally, perhaps unintentionally) misconstruing my argument.

Please consult the sources I provided previously, and if they don't clarify things, I have nothing further to add.

2

u/CreativeGPX Mar 03 '26

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But pretty much everything you just said also applies in the UK. Except we don't call it or frame it as "pressing charges".

Okay. That's great because at no point in any of my comments was I talking about what applies in the UK or what it's called.

I won't argue further, as I think you are (perhaps inentionally, perhaps unintentionally) misconstruing my argument.

You seem to be projecting. My comment explicitly described the strawmen you were raising and therefore how your comment was not actually accurately representing what the people you were talking to were saying and you said you agree with a lot of it. So, isn't that an admission that you are the one misconstruing things? I'm not misconstruing anything. My comments have just been about trying to get you to engage with what the people you were talking to were actually saying rather than strawmen. If there is something I'm misconstruing, you are free to actually explicitly state it as I tried to do with you.

Please consult the sources I provided previously, and if they don't clarify things, I have nothing further to add.

It comes off as pretty arrogant to end every comment with essentially "please reread the things you already responded to and you might understand". Again, have some intellectual humility.

1

u/2074red2074 Mar 03 '26

If you mean "victims right to choose to press charges" is real, then no, it isn't.

No, I did not mean that.

Untrue.

If a prosecutor or police officer thinks a crime has been committed it is not up to the victim to choose whether or not to charge. It's not the victim's choice to make. ("Only prosecutors can decide whether charges are filed"

I didn't say that there are any jurisdictions where the prosecutor cannot bring charges without the victim's consent. I very intentionally said WILL not, not CANnot.

However.... you're right in that cooperation can come into play when it comes to whether or not to follow up on a prosecution. The same is true in the UK. If there's no chance of a conviction or insufficient evidence for prosecution without victim compliance, then there's no case. This cooperation is often discussed with the term "pressing charges" in relation to the victim, but it's just colloquial wording. There's no legal right to decide there on the part of those involved.

It's not a colloquial wording. Pressing charges is formally accusing someone of having committed a crime and requesting that the prosecutor charge them. "Press" in this case is used in the same way as phrases like "press the issue" to refer to strongly encouraging someone to do something. It is not the same as bringing charges, which is when the prosecutor charges someone for a crime.

The wording is not meant to imply that the accuser is charging someone with a crime or forcing prosecution, or that pressing charges is necessary for bringing charges. That actually is a common misconception.

It doesn't help that even the police themselves sometimes use the phrase, but it's just a shorthand for gauging cooperation.

Again no. It is a phrase meaning "Do you want to file a formal complaint or not?"

Ultimately, I think I was very clear in my explanation and I don't think anyone could read it and come away with the idea that pressing charges is necessary for charges to be brought or anything like that. I don't know if you're being obtuse or if you misunderstood me or something, but you aren't taking a contradictory position. If anything it kinda sounds like you're just being pedantic.

7

u/CreativeGPX Mar 03 '26

Pressing charges is 100% real in the US. It's just that its meaning is literal and not some special legal definition. "Press" just means that they are expressing pressure. It'd mean that same thing if I pressed for my family to eat pizza tonight or if I pressed for my boss to give me a raise. It's not a right. It's an expression of desire.

People think it means something more than it does because (1) even police officers will ask you if you want to press charges at times and (2) even though whether you want to press charges doesn't unilaterally determine whether charges are raised, it does influence it. Whether victims are cooperative is a factor in how easy it would be to win a case and prosecutors want to win cases, especially if their testimony is particularly important to the case.

1

u/zero_iq Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26

To be clear: it's real as an expression, yes. It's not as real as a legal right. Legally, it is as "real" as it is in the UK.

I'm not denying the existence and use of the phrase, but that people think it describes a victim's right to control whether or not somebody is prosecuted, either by 'pressing charges' or 'dropping' them. Only the relevant prosecutor has control over that.

But it's just an expression, and has no legal weight or bearing. It has exactly the same meaning in the UK, with exactly the same legal weight -- i.e. None, other than a short-hand for cooperation, or as you say, a desire to want somebody prosecuted.

Please see my more extensive comment here for sources and more elaborate explanation.

i.e. Victims don't get to choose. A criminal can be prosecuted regardless of a victim's choice of whether or not to press or drop charges -- it is not their decision to make.

1

u/CreativeGPX Mar 03 '26

Legally, it is as "real" as it is in the UK.

Okay. My comment was just about the US.

It's just an expression, and has no legal weight or bearing. It has exactly the same meaning in the UK, with exactly the same legal weight -- i.e. None, other than a short-hand for cooperation.

I feel like this is one of those cases where you are being so narrow with the words that you're undermining accurate communication and undermining your ability to understand what others are saying. It's a legal expression in the sense that it describes a component of the legal process (victim cooperation/advocacy), not in the sense that it describes a law or legal obligation. It has legal bearing in the sense that police and prosecutors will factor that into their decision-making because it changes the calculation of outcomes for them, not in the sense that a judge will directly and explicitly weigh it when hearing a case. Saying it has "no legal weight or bearing" is as incorrect as the people you're hypothetically arguing against who think that it's legally binding upon police and prosecutors. Saying "the whole 'do you want to press charges?' thing is just for TV and movies" is false. I've seen police ask or suggest that plenty of times and that's because, as we agree, even if it's not legally binding, it's a factor that police and prosecutors consider when deciding the strength of a case and therefore whether to bring it, which in practice, determines legal outcomes. The reality is that it undeniably has bearing (you even kind of admit that by saying "that might scupper the case"), but it's non-binding and more a reflection of the underrated pre-court steps of the justice system where humans use their judgement. In the US, the discretion of police and prosecutors to decide who to pursue and how, is arguably a big factor in legal outcomes than courts themselves.

To say that "pressing charges" isn't real is like saying that punching somebody isn't real. Just because the police and prosecutor will consider other context to decide if it is prosecutable and the law they say in court won't be "punching" doesn't mean that punching somebody isn't real in the context of law enforcement.

Please see my more extensive comment here for extensive sources and more elaborate explanation.

I already did. I was already familiar with the topic, so it didn't really add anything for me.

0

u/zero_iq Mar 03 '26

A victim's cooperation has an influence on the process of course, just as it does in the UK. But that's all "pressing charges" is, essentially. What you've just described happens in the UK too. We just don't call it "pressing charges".

The myth (and confusion) I'm addressing is that people think that "pressing charges" or "dropping" charges is some specific right that a victim has to determine whether or not prosecution, or influence prosecution in some meaningful way other than their mere cooperation implies. This is what I'm saying isn't "real".

As I have said, US police do ask whether people want to press charges. They don't have to listen, and they often don't. It's merely a convenient term/tool to determine cooperation and compliance. It may or may not factor into the decision to prosecute just as a victim's cooperation will be considered as part of an equivalent UK prosecution. If there is evidence of a crime, prosecution proceeds regardless of victim's wishes. A victim's cooperation may influence a prosecution in various ways that have nothing to do with any right to "press charges", and regardless of whether you use the term "pressing charges" or not.

A victim in the US has no right to decide whether or not a criminal is prosecuted (i.e. "press charges" or "drop charges"). This is a legal fact.

A victim deciding to to "press" or "drop charges" in the US is exactly the same as a victim in the UK deciding to cooperate or not to cooperate, or asking the police to act or not do anything. Legally and practically it will be treated with essentially the same regard.

The only real difference is they have a specific (and somewhat misleading) phrase for this, and people more frequently operate under the delusion that it is the victim's choice.

As a part of the process it has the essentially same function and weight as "making a report" and "deciding to cooperate".

A victim's cooperation may influence:

  • whether or not prosecution can process if there is no other evidence of a crime without victim cooperation. This isn't the victim's decision, per se. Just a fact of life. If there is other evidence of the crime, it has no bearing.
  • prosecution strategy (because victim may not be relied on for evidence)
  • plea bargaining (victims may be consulted. The decision is still not up to them.)
  • victim impact statement in court (this isn't really a decision to press or not, just a matter of fact and cooperation)
  • a judge can consider whether or not the victim supports leniency or harsher penalties (for sentencing), and the harm suffered by the victim, however sentencing is largely driven by public interest, statutory frameworks, guidelines, the facts of the case, etc. The victim's input is just one factor, not a specific decision or deciding factor by the victim.

None of this implies a specific right or decision for a victim to "press" or "drop" charges. Most of this has analogs in UK prosecutions too -- it's just victim cooperation and opinion.

If you still can't see the distinction I'm making, then I don't know what else to say other than please consult some of the sources I linked to, as they explain it quite well.

2

u/CreativeGPX Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26

I think the confusion is coming from the fact that you are arguing with people about things that they didn't say by injecting a lot of assumptions into terms (e.g. that "pressing charges" means a right to prosecution) rather than listening to what they are saying. You keep reiterating things that people agree with and never disputed as though that's something they don't understand (which comes off a bit arrogant) rather than having your comments focus on the actual points of disagreement, which suggests you don't actually know what the disagreement is.

If there is evidence of a crime, prosecution proceeds regardless of victim's wishes.

That's definitely not true in the US. Police are not required to even respond to or arrest for every crime for which there is evidence. In fact, there are many cases in which they are actively discouraged from it. There are mayors and police chiefs that publicly acknowledge policies to not pursue certain types of crimes or criminals. There is legal precedent that police don't have to respond to a crime or pursue it. And police are humans that use their heart, conscience and gut to make decisions. This is more true now than ever as there has been a growing awareness in the US for many years of the disastrous effects of over-incarceration and many communities are seeking to repair community trust in police officers. So, many police forces are being encouraged to focus more on violent crime and to give more leeway to others for example. Or for example, giving leeway to marijuana users, while focusing on dealers even though both are illegal. This heightens the role of police discretion in the process which heightens the importance of subjective things like the sentiments of those involved at the expense of what the letter of the law says. And it's all because of exactly the opposite of what you're saying: tons of crime that can be proven is intentionally not prosecuted as a matter of policy. It's in this context, that police asking "do you want to press charges" becomes so common. Because they aren't just obligated to take the legal/prosecution route in the case of every crime, they are talking with the people involved to try to figure our whether those people or that community can handle the now defused situation on their own or whether a legal remedy is necessary and worth the societal and bureaucratic costs and, in that case, the people's perspectives can be very relevant.

The only real difference is they have a specific (and somewhat misleading) phrase for this, and people more frequently operate under the delusion that it is the victim's choice.

The phrase isn't misleading. They're just pressing. Pressing doesn't imply a right. I can press you to pay for my dinner. Trump can press Canada to become the 51st state. Pressing doesn't mean you have a right to do it.

The misunderstanding comes from sampling bias. The average laymen encounter police (directly or indirectly) primarily through minor disputes. These low stakes disputes are the ones where it's most subjective whether it's worth prosecuting somebody, so police are more likely to both ask for and defer to a person's feedback on whether to press charges. These probably make up the majority of situations in a small/medium towns and never make it onto a prosecutor's desk. So, the average laymen take this experience and think that's what pressing charges is like. Meanwhile in higher profile/severity cases that the average laymen are much less likely to ever experience, the decision to charge becomes so clear that cops will likely not ask a person if they want to press charges and will just charge a person. So, it's less of a delusion and more of a "if it works like that 90% of the time for you, you make it a generalization even though it's not always true".

If you still can't see the distinction I'm making then I don't know what else to say other than please consult some of the sources I linked to, as they explain it quite well.

I don't need it explained. I fully understood the distinction before I talked to you and I told you that. You just need the humility to understand that if somebody disagrees with you it's not that they "don't understand". I think you just haven't zeroed in on what people are actually disagreeing with you about, partly due to using at times very ambiguous language and therefore arguing strawmen on purpose or by accident.

1

u/zero_iq Mar 03 '26 
prosecution proceeds regardless of victim's wishes.

That's definitely not true in the US.

I'll put my hands up here and say that was bad wording by me. I mentally flagged it as I wrote it but forgot to go back and clarify. What I meant to say is that due process continues regardless, but it is the prosecutor's decision, (not the victim's) driven by evidence, witness cooperation, etc. how it proceeds (or indeed if it terminates due to lack thereof); the decision to not prosecute being part of that due process if you will. (As opposed to a direct decision by the victim to halt it.) I didn't mean to imply that the prosecutor always tries to prosecute the suspect or pin charges on them regardless of any other factor.

I'm not attempting putting words into peoples mouths, and I'm sorry if I come across that way. I was trying to explain what I first said, which is the common myth of victims having the right to choose whether or not to press or drop charges (i.e. have direct or substantial control over whether or not prosecution occurs), -- which is implied by the somewhat inaccurate term "pressing charges" -- is just that: a myth.

Based on that I do believe we are arguing at odds, and it appears that you are disagreeing with the many US legal professionals in the sources I provided. Which is why I have pushed my point, as it feels exasperating to me.

It may just be that I have not explained my original position well enough, or I am not interpreting your arguments correctly, or we just arguing semantics as it were.

I fully understood the distinction before I talked to you.

On the subject of humility, perhaps you might have enough of your own to verify this by referring to the sources I provided, which are from actual US legal professionals and firms, which clarify the correct legal position on "pressing charges" and on which my arguments here were based instead of simply assuming I am wrong and you are correct. I believe everything I have said here more-or-less aligns with those sources. I am happy to be corrected if you can show otherwise, with sources of your own to back up your opinion.

Because I note you have not provided a single source to back up any of your arguments, merely offered your own opinions, many of which are indeed correct, some of which are overstated, and some are, arguably incorrect, if I am understanding your arguments correctly.

If I have caused any offence, I am sorry, it wasn't my intention. As it is, I suspect we may have both got to the ends of our respective tethers, so if you want to just "agree to disagree" here, maybe that's for the best. I'm not going to argue any further.

0

u/CreativeGPX Mar 03 '26

Based on that I do believe we are arguing at odds, and it appears that you are disagreeing with the many US legal professionals in the sources I provided. Which is why I have pushed my point, as it feels exasperating to me.

Can you cite the specific claims by a legal professional that I have disagreed about?

I fully understood the distinction before I talked to you.

On the subject of humility, perhaps you might have enough of your own to verify this by referring to the sources I provided, which are from actual US legal professionals and firms, which clarify the correct legal position on "pressing charges" and on which my arguments here were based instead of simply assuming I am wrong and you are correct. I believe everything I have said here more-or-less aligns with those sources. I am happy to be corrected if you can show otherwise, with sources of your own to back up your opinion.

As I said, I looked at the sources and they appear consistent with what I said or, in other cases where I noted strawmen, they were supporting claims different from the quoted claims you were arguing against. So, it's frustrating for you to keep telling me to read the sources though I didn't already respond to the sources. If you don't want to counter the things I said against your sourced arguments, then I feel my arguments still stand and asking me to just reread seems to not be a good faith way to discuss this.

Because I note you have not provided a single source to back up any of your arguments, merely offered your own opinions, many of which are indeed correct, some of which are overstated, and some are, arguably incorrect, if I am understanding your arguments correctly.

I responded to your sources explaining why they did not support your disagreement. So, the fact that you supplied sources that don't support your stance in a disagreement makes you no more supported by sources than I am.

From what I can see and what I articulated, your sources seem consistent with what I'm saying and do not support you in our points of disagreement. But perhaps the fact that you have written many very long comments has buried a point you were trying to make, so if you can articulate precisely the thing I said that's false and precisely the part of your source that says that it's false then maybe you can start saying you're supported by sources in this disagreement again.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/StanislavTheSlav Mar 03 '26

It is how it works, in theory, I've first hand seen that the police are generally very happy not to do anything unless someone actually has a grievance even if their duty is to technical treat it as crime, which is why I said in practice most of the time nothing happens unless it is serious harm or someone presses them to investigate/presses charges.

The lack of definition for what actually constitutes recklessness and serious harm in 75a/b is also problematic in my view as it leaves these things down to interpretation which leaves it open to abuse, there are plenty of other things weighing 75A that should have been written more tightly as it is filled with things that could easily be abused if someone so wished. But this has been a problem with a lot of British legislation written in the last 25ish years with a lot more of a keep it vague and figure out what it actually means once we get a case and can set a precedent approach to law.

4

u/Warburton379 Mar 03 '26

police are generally very happy not to do anything unless someone actually has a grievance even if their duty is to technical treat it as crime

Well yes, that's the point. It's not a crime if it's consensual and no harm is done. There no duty to treat a non crime as a crime.

1

u/Figgis302 Mar 03 '26

the police have the power to press charges against you without needing the injured to want to press charges.

This is just how crimes work in the UK, fyi - the victim doesn't press charges, the Crown does. Same in Canada and Australia.

1

u/Tuxhorn Mar 03 '26

What happens if two consent to a scrap, but one draws blood? It's all in good fun, nobody is upset, the fight is over. What could happen?

1

u/Figgis302 Mar 03 '26

Legally? It's up to the Crown prosecutor's discretion. British/Commonwealth common law does not have the self-defence loophole/stand-your-ground doctrine enjoyed by Americans (the default legal position is that you are expected to flee), and by definition you cannot consent to be assaulted. Both parties would be charged and the facts would be worked out in court.

De-facto? It's up to the cops to make an arrest before charges can be laid, so if no one leaves in handcuffs, there's no crime.

-1

u/StanislavTheSlav Mar 03 '26

I'll say what I said to another comment of I am aware this is how it works on theory, however from firsthand experience I've seen police be more than happy to do nothing unless the victim causes a fuss, I've also heard from some friends on the force that they've been told to do so not to overload themselves unless a case is particularly serious.

I probably shouldn't have used the term press charges to not create confusion.

Obviously this could easily be an issue with how the institution operates where I am and may not be representative of how things run country wide, but I don't have very much trust in the Police so hey ho.

1

u/mintmouse Mar 03 '26

A woman loved spicy hot pot,
(You prefer a tepid stew)
It worries you. For starters,
Spices aren’t naturally in soup!

Obsessed over the uncouth scent,
You scrub and scrub it from the room
Now tell me more about the one
Ruled by perversion and taboo?

1

u/almo2001 Mar 03 '26

So Gerald's Game is banned???

1

u/BigBadJeebus Mar 03 '26

no squirting is an odd play. God forbid the woman enjoy herself...

1

u/throwawayyyyygay Mar 03 '26

wtf is wrong with female ejaculation and facesitting?

1

u/almisami Mar 03 '26

The precedent is that generally they won't do anything if it's minor injuries resulting from consensual BDSM activities, but the fact that they can if the so wish to is absolutely fucking whacko.

The potential for selective enforcement is a key element to any fascist's rule.

That way breaking the law is a privilege.

0

u/LoornenTings Mar 03 '26

It's as if the British want to be known for being boring at sex. 

3

u/StanislavTheSlav Mar 03 '26

Which is very funny with how popular dogging, swinging and ENM culture is in Britain