No.

>>25327575
Why not?

>>25327569
It would never acquire the same taboo it had for games since so much of women's "literature" and the classics would have AO ratings.

>>25327569
Why?

File: cigaretes.jpg (69.8 KB)

>>25327569
Instead it should be like cigarette warning labels, so if a book has sexual content it should have hyperrealistic medical pictures of STDs, or a book that has violence should show ultrarealistic bodies with organs or bones protruding from their bloody gashes. They should mandate this kind of warning label to gets AI-generated into truly indicative cover art for any "adults only" kind of books you can buy so that people would be appropriately scandalized by the crap they are buying. It would be even funnier if a woman thought she wanted to read a "dark romance" book in public, but the cover was some herpes meth slattern getting her teeth knocked out by a 6'4" bull.

>>25327618
>Sonic the Hedgehog games have to have warning labels with pictures of Chris Chan on them

You are a fucking idiot who has no idea what these are even for or why they exist.

File: 91lfjoJoaIL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg (178.4 KB)

>>25327569
>Should we have these for books?
Absolutely yes. It's much easier to find the kino stuff. Some gritty, depressing litfic that goes balls deep into the human condition and doesn't sugar coat it? Come on. 18+ = quality.
>It would be funny if women's "literature" suddenly had an "Adults Only" mark square in the corner.
Russia has it, and yes, some are 18+.
>I guess the real problem is retailers not wanting to sell AO products
Nah. The vast majority of literary fiction is 18+, the only two things that would survive would be YA and children books.

>>25327579
esrb ratings are used by toy companies like nintendo or namco bandai so that parents wouldn't need to worry about buying their kids the wrong thing. harper perennial and hogarth don't make toys.

>>25327685
They make sex toys - and (pre)teenage girls are reading them…

>>25327712
women reading smut is damaging but not nearly as damaging as boys and young men getting into gaming, which is more addictive and emotionally hollow than ever before.

>>25327683
you are a retard

>>25327683
Only 18 year olds care about the 18+ label

File: 42872371-9a59-4270-b37c-c355c75dc115.jpg (161.9 KB)

>>25327719
Why would you say that?

File: 3689b48d-f6ef-4952-9b80-49404cfd5d68.jpg (1.1 MB)

>>25327723
Exactly. OP has a very specific idea of 18+ novel (porn), because he doesn't read anything that would warrants the 18+ label (snorefests).

File: 41ZH7EFGlHL.jpg (28.4 KB)

Last one.
Anon wants to stick it to female readers, but he'll end up making life easier for 35 years old /lit/bros.

>>25327718
>which is more addictive and emotionally hollow than ever before.
Yep

>>25327569
Ceet Marp

>>25327569
CEETMARP
(Is this the new "BRAP," just the pussy version?)

No

>>25327569
Australia does have these for books. It's as stupid as it sounds but it bets America's puritanical system of banning books that don't suit their retarded evangelical parody of a religion.

>>25327569
There wouldn't be any point, we're long past the heyday of age ratings (and literature altogether) in the west. If governments can't enforce the movie and video game versions, what would be the point in new waste of tax organisations for a book variety?

>>25327569
No. Precisely because it is censorship and a slippery slope into even more censorship through some wise guy inttoducing laws like:
>"jail a guy, who had bought a book marked 'for adults' and gave it to an underage"
>"jail a guy, who had bought a book marked 'for adults' and had an intention to give it to an underage"
>"all wrongthink books must have a special mark"
>"jail a guy, who had bought a book marked 'wrongthing' with the intention of giving it to an underage"
>"jail a guy, who had bought a book marked 'wrongthink'"
>"jail a guy, who had mentioned a book marked 'wrongthink' to anybody else"
>"jail a guy, who 'had in possession (read: in whose possessions police/special service/other goverment people had planted this book or just pretended it was there as nobody would be able to check them anyway) book marked 'wrongthink"
etc.
Not a single book can do any significant damage to anyone reading it - worst case scenario this person will fail to understand the content or will have a bad mood for the rest of the day - and in that case a person could always just stop reading this book.
Only real damage any book can make is the damage to propaganda and brainwashing - if only because alternative ideas are introduced and readers would learn to think for themselves through that.
As for the case of usage - if videogames and movies has to be watched/played almost fully for a parent to determine if it suits to give such a movie/game to his children - and doing it will take a lot of time not to mention the requirement to buy it anyway (naturally, we are talking about main population, who can't into 'alternative' sources and have little to no experience in things discussed) - book one can skim through in a matter of seconds, minutes at worst to see some of events described, words used, general plot etc - thus making marking system a redundancy. Not to mention the entire internet full of reviews and, in case a parent is an illiterate idiot, an ability to ask a fellow literate person that parent trusts to check if a book would be suitable for children and what is this book about - or just learn to fucking read.

>>25328720
>Not a single book can do any significant damage to anyone reading it - worst case scenario this person will fail to understand the content or will have a bad mood for the rest of the day - and in that case a person could always just stop reading this book.
Except for the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, Analects, Diamond Sutra etc

>>25328734
Powerhungry psychopats will find a way and a reason to make stupid people to kill other people even without those - those books were used as symbols - as you can see there were always people in charge, who were "interpreting" those books for their followers to make those followers to keep following and to "free them from tye burden of thinking for themselves". You might as well put a plate of spaghetti on an altar and "interpret" its pattern to a cult you made to say that "these sacred interwoven threads tell you to interweave your lives with those of that other cult by using holy sporks to cut their threads into pieces" - the result would be the same. Books themselves do no harm.

>>25328752
>books do not harm.
Look at all the pinkos on this board that still fall for outdated propaganda used once upon a time to dupe morons into overthrowing a government in exchange for an even worse government and tell me again that books do not harm.

>>25327580
Your statement is false.
It would never happen because women would chimp out that their literature is getting 'discriminated against'.

>>25328684
>but it bets America

you can always bet on America, even parody cuck retards like your sad self.

>>25327580
>and the classics would have AO ratings.

PG-13 movies regularly indicate that people have sex with the difference being that they don‘t show genitals or otherwise hover on the scene to where the sex is an end in itself. I can‘t really think of any pre-20th century books which would fail that filter.

CEETMARP

>>25327683
Blyat