Okay folks, this is serious - No Alcohol, No drugs, No Nonconsensual

To give a little more background, both of the major card networks have a fairly short list of banned practices, as well as a much wider ban on anything that would bring that card network into disrepute by being associated with it. The penalties for banks who process such "brand damaging transactions" are significant, and that tends to mean they will err on the side of caution.

So that short list gets pretty long and pretty broad.

To give a real example, a few years ago some billers banned vampire fantasy content. The logical progression was that the card networks both ban depictions of non-consensual mutilation, so it's safer to ban all depictions of mutilation, which was expanded to a total prohibition on showing any blood, so you can't have vampires.

Similarly someone who is drunk, or drugged, or hypnotised, or asleep cannot consent to sexual activity, so depictions of these activities, even when it is clearly fantasy, are not allowed.

You may be aware that VISA is currently being sued alongside the operator of a major tube site for profiting from illegal material. The banking industry is on high alert.

To be clear, we're not out to kink shame, and us not being able to host certain content is not a moral judgement about that content or those who enjoy it. Wherever possible we will try to work to keep content compliant and online.

There was a discussion on the forum recently about "stepfamily" content. Both card networks have an explicit ban on depictions of incest which leads to the "step" modifier being used... liberally. But we also understand that some people are really into daddy or mommy talk without the step modifier being used. That can happen, the scene just needs to be presented as being a sugardaddy or sugarmommy scenario instead.

We want to bring everyone the content they love, and we genuinely appreciate how the passion of the community shows in the forum and comments.

We will continue to push things forward and make SLR a place where you can explore, experiment, and improve your sexual wellness.

petergriff but I'm still not entirely sure what they're so afraid of.

Political pressure. The government regulates banks.

A faction on the left believes that ALL porn is exploitive and non-consensual and contributes to sex trafficking; also, even when it's not, it is a slippery slope that leads to exploitation and other evils.

A faction on the right, mostly religious zealots, largely agree with those on the left PLUS believe that porn is a sin the same way that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

These groups can put enough pressure on elected officials to get the elected officials to pressure the regulators to pressure the banks to stop doing business with sex-related businesses.

It wouldn't be hard to track money from truly illegal sex work to a porn website to a bank. And with many laws, the standard to create a conspiracy is "knew or should have known."

And when making decisions about enforcing regulations, government regulators are usually subject to a "substantial evidence" standard, essentially meaning that if there is any evidence to support their decision, a court will uphold it.

So, if a website has content on it that appears to be illegal or might be illegal, it might not be too hard to convince banking regulators that a bank "should have known" they were taking money from illegal activities--and the regulators could potentially fine the bank big time.

If the bank attempts to overturn that in court, the regulators can point to the videos as substantial evidence. The only way a bank MIGHT overcome that would be to get all the actors in the videos in question to testify that everything was 100% consensual, that the drugs were fake, etc. etc.

And what do you think the odds would be of a bank being able to get all the actors in dozens of videos from around the world to come to the USA and testify? Even if they could, would they want to go through all that trouble?

It's much easier to put in strict prohibitions on the type of content that a website can show.

As much as I'm against this type of censorship, I would do the exact same thing if I were SLR. Any other choice would eventually lead to the demise of this great website. Or a vast reduction in the profitability, which would lead to people losing their jobs, and eventually result in less and lower quality content.

doublevr what do you mean by ‘stop words’? Do you mean words that refer to non-consensual sex? A word that rhymes with gape for example?

You say no pee drinking but does that mean no pee in the mouth at all or is it ok if she spits it out?

It’s getting more and more like Onlyfans on here though. It’s a shame how these fucked up right wing zealots running America ruin everyone’s fun in the rest of the World.

The no alcohol thing is just crazy. Every tv show in the world features couples meeting in a bar and going home to have sex, it’s real life. I get that you can’t actually have real alcohol on set and can’t show someone pretending to be drunk but having a prop of something which looks like alcohol which someone takes a sip of shouldn’t be banned by these people surely.

The no guns thing as well. I get why people may be uncomfortable showing someone having sex at gun point but does that mean you can’t do a James Bond parody for example where Bond is captured by a female villain with a gun and the scene eventually progresses into consensual sex?