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.
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…
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OK, but that leaves open everything the British might classify as “dessert”, which could be literally anything, including everything I listed previously
Having lived here for the better part of a decade…they keep trying to deport them. I always like to say that the US kept all the worst bits of being British.
Well, it’s their business to know what you like doing in the privacy of a bedroom. Knowing is nothing at all like not knowing. The impacts on society are totally different.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not from the UK, what’s this about. Can’t sit on faces no more?
Any dorm of choking is banned, which includes face sittning apparently.
A new law that bans several kinks in porn is taking effect today.
Governmental kink shaming? Yikes.
Very British
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.
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…
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.
This doesn’t really answer any questions, but at least I’ll end up at a nice curry shop.
Always room for a little pud
It means desert.
Thanks for clearing that up
Oy luv das alot of puddn innit
Yup, accurate.
That’s a chocolate mousse.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
I can’t guarantee it isn’t any or all of those.
THAT’S WHAT’S SO FUCKING FRUSTRATING!
I’M PRETTY SURE IT’S ALL OF THESE! AND ALSO MORE THINGS!
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.
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.
The only one I know is the Christmas cake they agreed was so terrible they simply set it on fire.
I’m relatively certain that was the plot of a Hercule Poirot Christmas story told by Agatha Christie
Yep:
Pudding is dessert.
So it’s what you posted, plus every other sweet treat you might have after your tea.
What’s a yorkshire pudding?
A bowl of ice cream eaten in Leeds.
Tea being a code word for dinner, which probably does not involve any tea.
Dinner, when lunch, is not tea, but may well include tea.
OK, but that leaves open everything the British might classify as “dessert”, which could be literally anything, including everything I listed previously
Do you mean other nations don’t chase their meal of boiled meat and root vegetables with a delicious bowl of quail custard?
Baffling.
Having lived here for the better part of a decade…they keep trying to deport them. I always like to say that the US kept all the worst bits of being British.
Well, it’s their business to know what you like doing in the privacy of a bedroom. Knowing is nothing at all like not knowing. The impacts on society are totally different.
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.
what’s odd is that creation or sharing is only possible with possession. seems like that’s why the used that word/concept on its own?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because historically that always goes well.
/S
The govt really shouldn’t open up that can of worms.
Because who can resist an open can of worms 🤤😏