- Oct 29, 2017
- 3,082
- 14,252
- Thread starter Maleficent
- Start date
- Nov 10, 2020
- 4,481
- 10,418
She's come close to showing child breast might to tell them about that to Nyx is sooo dirty
- May 29, 2020
- 6,021
- 27,425
Nyx waking up tomorrow and finding that her patreon page has been nukedShe's come close to showing child breast might to tell them about that to Nyx is sooo dirty
Let's check what the Int... nope.
This is patently false. I say that as someone who finds zero appeal in incest and would be fine with no game having a 'muh landlord' character ever again.
It's obvious to an objective eye that Nyx teases the incest issue, with otherwise unneccesary dialogue prompts - like the whole "can I join you at the beach?" From the non-incest perspective, it's jarring and out of place.
This isn't the only instance of stuff like this. Someone pointed out earlier in the thread Nyx seems to like teasing these issues - in the same way that a bunch of the mom scenes are "incest-bait", you have a bunch of the scenes with Erynn being "ntr-bait". They don't actually contain anything, but you'd have to be glib not to read between the lines at what the author is conveying.
One could even extend this to the age nonesense people have been blathering about for the past 2 pages. Again, Nyx teases an issue which is a near-and-dear debate to a certain fetish crowd (in this case it's loli or similar).
-sidebar:
Don't take my use of pejoratives to suggest these debates are strange or unreasonable... that's basically what these forums are for. Everyone has their favorite fetishes, and each of those fetishes spawn common debates which have enthusiastic participants from members of that respective fetish group. Just so happens that loli, ntr, and incest aren't mine.
Yeah, except for a little place called the US of fucking A, which likely constitutes a majority of the users. Why do people keep repeating this falsehood? Again, I've zero interest in loli stuff, but US law is crystal clear on digital depictions of pornoraphic acts; any restriction would risk violating the first amendment.
Can't judge asses, not an assman. For bewbs, it's a tie between Val and Layla. Built for speed or built for comfort? Layla's look more realistic though, and if I were forced to pick one it'd be Layla, if only to slight the intentionally-perfect Val.
You sure about that? This bit of legislation doesn't agree with you.
" Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age)."
You must be registered to see the links
Just to point out that 1st amendmend doesn't mean you can say or express whatever you wish, and not have any consequences. There are very specific limitations to free speech, for example you can't yell fire in full theater if there's no fire.
disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer. I'd love to hear an attorney weigh in.
I wouldn't use the language on the DoJ website, as it tends to summarize with language often representating an enforcement agency's interests.
The actual USC text:
You must be registered to see the links
. Of interest to us are definitions 8-11. I suspect there's some nuance in the terms like "identifiable minor" (looks like a real person somewhere) that prevents purely digital creations from inclusion.The reason I suspect this is because
You must be registered to see the links
from 20 years ago is quite clear on SCOTUS's stance towards fictional digital recreations of otherwise childlike characters.This case's outcome struck down
You must be registered to see the links
. What I couldn't tell you (and I'd love for a lawyer to interject); is the relationship between the ccp act and the current language used in chapter 110 of 18 USC. Obviously, this has been amended since the creation of the internet; I just don't know what else played into it; and what the current correct interpretation is.
Last edited:
I'm not a lawyer either, and I'd say the lawyers have been battling this one out for quite a while with no clear solution in sight, with the line of separation between 3D and reality fading more and more. At what point do we decide enough is enough?
As for this case, seems to me it was ruled because the examples didn't actually show any explicit sexual activity, which is something these games quite literally do.
In the end, it all boils down to that line, and as Patreon and similar services are businesses, they are covering their asses for the inevitable event of the line disappearing.
I'm saying I don't think this is the case. A clear legal distinction exists in 2256 between "identifiable minors" and fiction. To me, this makes perfect sense, e.g. making deepfake pr0n of a real child, even though it's a fake digital creation would be illegal. The separation is whether it resembles an actual person's likeness. Again, any lawyer that would correct me on this interpretation, I'd welcome.
The Ashcroft decision was NOT contigent on the amount or degree of sexual activity depicted. From the Ashcroft wiki:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
There's 2 motivations which are often blurred together in enforcing action against cp. One is to prevent harm to real children. The other is a sort of 'moral policing' of behavior that's seen as reprehensible by the majority. I have no interest in loli stuff myself. But I think while the first motivation is quite commendable, the second is fickle and often subjective. And those writing these laws aren't stupid, in many cases the distinction is accounted for. (Some of this may be confusing to a person from mainland Europe, where expression laws come with more caveats)
I'll hush up now, please, resume the 16-18 year old Ivy debates.
Last edited:
No harem. Choose the girl you like and stick with her. Or don't and experience the joy of what comes next...
- Mar 28, 2021
- 2,546
- 4,050
whenever a new update comes and I have to dust off my 9 saves
- Nov 14, 2017
- 60,066
- 30,064
that bad memory?whenever a new update comes and I have to dust off my 9 saves
Well... unless you choose two then pretend you didn't using the universal mod or similar...
I mean, sure it may be immersion breaking getting 'hi MC this is ..' instead 'OMG YOUR DOING BOTH OF US', but convenient recollection or loss of specific memories is already an in use plot device so meh.
I was determined to do an Alexis playthrough! And then I met Valeria....
- Apr 11, 2022
- 640
- 2,075
- Feb 7, 2020
- 204
- 554
I was going to say something but the picture has made me lose my train of thought...... breasts. Anyway that sure is a good render.