Mama Fiona - My Son's Filthy Secret

«Would love to act this out with Mama Fiona»

«Re cancelling her from platforms: It is my understanding that she recorded a video (candid style, non role play) in which she said, she would/might have sexual relations with her real son, should he need / want it. In addition we worry that criminals with an addiction are better for society, when they practice complete abstinence in line with drug addicts.»

«Interesting, Bobodragons. Ridiculous, but interesting.

Thank God I don't have to deal with this personally, as I have the typical reaction to even the thought of sex involving min*rs (disgust), but my reaction to those people unfortunate enough to be plagued with such desires is that of PITY. It's obvious to me that such desires are pretty much perfectly comparable to homosexual desires: unusual, and disgusting to people who don't have those desires, but not something that the person feels as a matter of choice.

Unlike with homosexuality, which the West has finally come to terms with, people have really unenlightened views about ped*ph*l*s. The problem isn't that they are perverts, disgusting, etc. The ONLY problem is that the objects of their desires don't have the capacity to consent to sex acts, which effectively makes all sex acts involving them r*p*. It's a tragedy that some unfortunate souls are plagued with sexual desires that they will have to go their entire lives without ever fulfilling. Again, I pity such people. I don't hate them. (I wouldn't want them to be around children, of course, as the temptation would be so great that many of them would act on their desires. Don't get me wrong, children need to be protected from these people. But that doesn't mean that it's appropriate to hate them or to unnecessarily interfere with their harmless fantasy lives.)

But when the "victim" of ped*ph*lia is a FICTIONAL person, it's nothing short of insane to care about the "victim." WHO CARES if a non-existent ch*ld is r*p*d? There is no ACTUAL victim involved. AI-generated porn seems, to me, like a fantastic SOLUTION to this problem. It provides sexual relief to these poor, unfortunate souls without victimizing ANYBODY. But the neo-Puritans have finally been shamed into leaving homosexuals alone, so I guess they need a new target for their bigotry and judgment.

The only comparable insanity I'm aware of for this move to criminalize fictional, artificially generated photos of ch*ldr*n is some insanity I heard about a few years ago regarding sex dolls. (To be clear, I'm referring to actual dolls, inanimate objects, not to actual women putting on an act.) There was concern by feminists looking for something new to hate men about that the rights of female sex dolls aren't being respected! The concern was that men have sex with these dolls WITHOUT THE DOLLS' PERMISSION. How nuts is that?!? I'm typing this on a computer keyboard, but the keyboard hasn't given me its permission to do so, so I guess I'm guilty of assaulting my computer's keyboard, at least by this crazy "logic." This is the only case that I'm aware of that seems comparable to prosecuting--nay, PERsecuting--someone for possessing or distributing artists' renderings of indecent photos of non-existent ch*ldr*n. These people have lost sight of the ACTUAL issues involved.

Still, I haven't gotten answers to my main questions about the seemingly ridiculous standards being enforced surrounding age play porn. I'm talking about videos where there is no actual ch*ld involved; it's just a woman talking to or about a ch*ld who doesn't actually exist. What did Goddess Fiona (AKA Mama Fiona, AKA Fiona Costello) do that got her cancelled by a bunch of neo-Puritanical morons? Etc.

If anybody knows, I'd love to hear about it.

Thanks, all.

MrMod»

«What exactly is "explicit" age play content? I can't imagine an actress saying ANYTHING that justifies her removal. I mean who really cares if she TALKS about fucking a fictitious 5 year old [banned word], for example. Statutory [banned word] laws and similar laws are a good thing, because they protect actual children, people who lack the capacity to consent to sex acts. If she had an ACTUAL under-18 year old appearing in a video, that's one thing. But it sounds like her offense was just fantasy, just speech by an of-legal-age actress.

Does anybody know what are the (apparently ridiculous) rules that porn content creators are forced to adhere to? Age play? Sexual assault (again, I'm referring to fictitious fantasy, not ACTUAL sexual assault)? Other major rules? What entities create and enforce these rules?

On a related point, I've never been able to find out why porn videos now all have stories involving STEP-relatives, instead of implicitly biological relatives, like they used to a couple of years ago. They now also seem to try to conceal use of "the I word," which strikes me as probably even more stupid than the now-de rigueur (and insulting to the people it allegedly protects) "the N word." I'd be really interested to know what this is all about, if anybody knows. Dead_man_dingo? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

Thanks.»

«Does anyone know why she just like disappeared from the internet. Her and YFM, all their content on all their official platforms is GONE.»