417
PSA: This Futurama episode will be banned in the UK starting today (media.piefed.zip)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is a joke about face sitting.

Season 7 episode 21, Assie Come Home

all 91 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 70 points 4 days ago (60 children)

Not from the UK, what's this about. Can't sit on faces no more?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 60 child comments
    •
  • [–] 120 points 4 days ago* (58 children)

    A new law that bans several kinks in porn is taking effect today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 58 child comments
    •
  • [–] 144 points 4 days ago (44 children)

    Governmental kink shaming? Yikes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
    •
  • [–] 62 points 4 days ago (43 children)

    Very British

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 43 child comments
    •
  • [–] 34 points 4 days ago (42 children)

    I sometimes feel like the British authorities would ban sex altogether if they could find people some other way that would be willing to eat kidney pie.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
    •
  • [–] 38 points 4 days ago* (40 children)

    When it comes to British culture, the thing I’m most hung up on is their definition of “pudding“. As an American, this is what “pudding“ means to me:

    But when the British use the word “pudding“ I have absolutely no goddamn idea what they mean. I have been trying to figure it out for decades, immersing myself in British culture, and I am no closer to figuring it out than I was when I started.

    Is it a car? A breed of cow? A 15th century poet? A sweet sausage meat pie made with a crispy crust? A Welsh slur for immigrants? A sex act that was popular during the Victorian era? I have no fucking idea…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 4 days ago (12 children)

    I can't guarantee it isn't any or all of those.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 4 days ago* (11 children)

    THAT’S WHAT’S SO FUCKING FRUSTRATING!

    I’M PRETTY SURE IT’S ALL OF THESE! AND ALSO MORE THINGS!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    They must have run out of words and got tired of borrowing them from other languages. Those who were still willing were all shipped to Australia? Sounds like a criminal act as far as the British are concerned.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago*

    I think this was during one of their cultural takeover luls, before they discovered a bunch of new foods and bugs. Maybe before Australia, but maybe before the Americas. Who the fuck knows.

    Definitely during a period of a lot of disease and cousin-fucking, so 1000-1500AD. You know, when religion was very popular and science was not

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago (8 children)

    Pudding is just dessert. Sometimes it's a pudding you'd recognise as a pudding, sometimes it's a bit of ice cream, other times it's something ridiculous. It's always dessert.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (3 children)

    Yes, I was able to determine that within a few minutes. The frustration comes from the wide range of bizarre dishes that the Britons define as “dessert“. It could be literally anything I have previously listed, and a wide ranging manner of things I didn’t.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    So... you're angry about what a different culture considers dessert? Maybe don't look into South Asian or East Asian desserts.....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 child)

    I don’t recall ever using the word “angry“ here...

    And this isn’t about desserts; it’s about the British usage of the word “pudding”, as I clearly articulated. Try to keep up.

    (oh, and if you’re gonna project your emotions onto me, don’t be so sloppy about it)

    Edit: a thought occurs: there’s some nice grass outside. You should go and touch it. In the meantime: you’re blocked.

    Edit: had to jump to an alt account just to pretend to read my mind? Who’s the “angry” one? Lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    As another 'Murican, the way I understand it is that if it's boiled or steamed inside of an animal intestine or stomach, that's a pudding. And even if it's fried later, it's still a pudding. See: Black Pudding, a British blood pudding.

    And if it's only steamed, often wrapped in a cloth, it's probably a desert.

    In any case, if some British person offers you a "pudding" don't ask questions you really don't want the answer to. Just shut up and eat it. They ARE British after all. And if you really don't want to risk it, ask if you can go to a curry shop instead. Blessed be the Indians who taught the Brits to cook at least one edible dish.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    I think their pudding was introduced in food rationing during some war or another. To let the meat and such go farther, they made pudding from things like leftover bread and whatever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago

    The word pudding was around long before there was a Britain. It was much simpler back then. A pudding was anything you stuffed into an animal intestine or stomach and boiled the Hell out of it, (See: Holy Water).

    At some point, when ingredients like eggs, sugar, and flour became common, the Brits kind of went off the rails and completely lost the whole thread as to just what is a pudding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

    Oh great, that only narrows it down to the last millennium or so, and the meat of nearly every beast, fish, and fowl.

    So… Scotland?

    Edit: I say! With these comments, I’m really being taken on a grand tour!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Yep the Scots have their famous Haggis boiled in a sheep's stomach. It is impossible to make a real Haggis in the US, it's not legal to sell such things as a sheep's stomach because of food safety.

    So, unless you make your own sheep's stomach from scratch, we are stuck with canned Haggis in the US. Which is OK, but not the best. And to be honest, the Scots also have moved on to canned haggis since it a very time consuming dish to make.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago* (2 children)

    I did have an authentic haggis at a restaurant in New York when I lived there. From what I understood, it was quite well prepared. I wasn’t the biggest fan of it. Although I did enjoy the experience from the perspective of discovery and new experience.

    A scotch egg, on the other hand, is something I fucking adore. I’ve tried many times to make one on my own, only to fail horrifically many times.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    It means desert.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    It means desert.

    Thanks for clearing that up

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (6 children)

    Pudding is dessert.

    So it's what you posted, plus every other sweet treat you might have after your tea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

    That's a chocolate mousse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago*

    A chocolate mousse is whipped and much lighter and fluffier. It’s consistency is closer to that of a paste. Chocolate pudding is saucier and more gooey in texture. A mousse would be able to hold its form. A pudding certainly would not.

    But they are very similar in both flavor and appearance

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 3 days ago

    Its used as another word for 'dessert'. Its not that fucking confusing.

    Then again with Americans believing Jesus walked with dinosaurs and that Trump would give them cheaper eggs I'm not shocked you can't comprehend cultural differences.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 4 days ago* (9 children)

    The way I read it is that possession of the material is illegal, not sharing or recording. Possession. In Denmark possession of CSAM was made illegal and it lead to police being forced to prosecute people who accidentally uncovered CSAM and wanted to report it. I haven't heard of specific cases, but if you want to report existence of CSAM on a CD that is in your hands which you found in the attic of a home you just moved into the police will tell you to destroy it immediately and forget about it because the law can't distinguish between the owner of the CSAM and the current temporary person that possesses it and reports it. The UK law sounds like it will create the same issue (not that I am arguing that consensual BDSM = CSAM. Far from it. I just fear the consequences could be transferrable to this law and outlawing possession of bits and bytes is always a problem).

    I btw couldn't find face sitting on the list of outlawed kinks, so those who are into that are safe for now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    there's websites that are deleting face sitting as it's unclear if it can be legally viewed as suffocation, so it's a classic morality law that uses vague language to get broad self censorship happening.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    The vagueness is absolutely a problem and in morality laws might even be an intended side effect.

    This source though interprets it differently saying that having a hand at the throat without actual choking isn't covered but do note the keyword seems to be is splattered all over the page. (PS. The page is SFW but I don't know about the rest of the site).

    No matter what this is an inch away from being a straight up though police law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

    it's not intended as a side effect, it's a very well known tactic in law writing that goes back to some of the earliest laws humans ever made, the point of vauge language in law is to have wider appeal, and to claim arbitrary power by the law giver.

    edit: just adding that part of that arbitrary power is getting people to behave in extreme ways outside of the scope of the legal system 'just in case'. so, people deleting face sitting porn to comply with 'no strangulation' even though there's no language to explicitly say so, and no legal reason to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    In Denmark possession of CSAM was made illegal and it lead to police being forced to prosecute people who accidentally uncovered CSAM and wanted to report it. I haven’t heard of specific cases, but if you want to report existence of CSAM on a CD that is in your hands which you found in the attic of a home you just moved into the police will tell you to destroy it immediately and forget about it because the law can’t distinguish between the owner of the CSAM and the current temporary person that possesses it and reports it.

    The fuuuuuck? Even in america, the stars would have to align for that to happen. The cop would have to dislike you, the prosecutor would have to dislike you (or be gunning for a higher political position and you're an easy mark for being tough on child criminals), the jury would have to hate you (or be really dumb and not believe you took the material to the cops in the first place), AND you would have to be dumb enough to not realize how hated you are in your local area and still give them the rope to hang you with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 11 points 4 days ago

    It's nonsense.

    See for example the Danish "Operation Umbrella" where more than 1000 cases of possession of CSAM were prosecuted because a video of two fifteen year olds had been shared around on FB messenger.

    Those who had received and opened it did not get punished. Those who had passed it on or requested it did.

    Perfectly sensible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Do you have any documentation for these claims about Danish law? They don't match e.g. the rulings in the big Umbrella case from some years ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago

    No it's anecdotal. Someone told me they discovered CSAM on second hand hardware and that was what they were told when they reported it. Umbrella just shows the incompetence of the police, this case shows the incompetence of the law. Doesn't matter if anyone got jailed because of it, the fear is enough to not report CSAM.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 30 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    DEATH BY SNU SNU!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 30 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    What about goblin totem poles

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 24 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Is this classed as "ass smothering" or "jeans facesitting"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 24 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    What about the one where Fry sleeps with his own grandmother to become his own grandfather?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 19 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Isn't this the same country that has a pedo prince, and ties to the biggest pedo ring in modern history? Something about a Seville too.....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago*

    It's also going to make that porn more popular. Media bans don't actually work because of how media demand works. Supply and demand don't naturally coordinate for media exchange, except by apply risk to non-paying recipients of media. That's how copyright works. If you apply risk to non-paying recipients for a different reason, economics doesn't care about your reason. Just that you applied risk. Risk applied to paying parties goes into a different part of the formula. The result is total demand goes up (cash changing hand motivating production), but it becomes sold as a contraban.

    D = CV*min(1,FR/FV)-CR, F(free) V(value) R(risk) C(commercial)

    Because these are all distributions. Subtracting the CR distribution from that more complex part never gives you a zero distribution. But if FR is uniformly zero, demand goes to zero. Once you introduce FR you open the window of coordination (modifier of CV) to be non-zero. Because copyright enforcement is lax for pornography, FR is basically zero now. But it's about to not be.

    It's the same reason commercial production of CSAM increases.

    Ok, bye.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Isn't this the same country that has a pedo prince

    No.

    and ties to the biggest pedo ring in modern history?

    I take it you mean Epstein? In which case plenty of countries have ties but predominantly US.

    Something about a Seville too.....

    We do like our oranges and Spanish holidays.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 11 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    I thought she had some weird long feet before I zoomed in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Nah, he plausibly can breath so it's okay, if I understand the stupid bill's logic.

    "What if the half-pints (who shouldn't be on those soites without a porno loicense anyway!) learn the wrong way to have a mad hatter!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 7 points 4 days ago

    From the thumbnail, I thought Leela had a freakishly long foot for a second.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 12 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    They should ban the one with the dog instead

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Sometimes it's ok to feel the big feelings, actually.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 5 points 3 days ago*

    With this new law effect in the UK, does that mean that most of Totally Spies is banned there?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    I did a deep dive into this last week. Part of the confusion is because facesitting got banned a decade ago, in 2014. There was a protest where sex workers sat on faces outside Parliament and everyone sang Monty Python's Sit On My Face. The ban was overturned in 2020, then relitigated nowadays in 2026 when a new law banned suffocation. A popular porn website I've never heard of before last week said facesitting is suffocation, hence the current internet drama.

    Folks, your face sitting is still perfectly legal, but you may have to go to court to argue it, because there's no precedent establishing it yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 4 days ago

    And?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •