• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

Darat said:
It is there because it is legal pornography. If it looks like it was actual children - no matter the age of the performers - it is illegal in the UK.
Click to expand...
You said: In the UK there is no "barely legal" it is either legal or illegal.

That is not a true statement - on the net it's legal but in the cinema it is illegal - all within the same country - the UK.
 
arthwollipot said:
Can you refer to the argument rather than to me when you attempt your rebuttals?
Click to expand...
The argument? What, that: Nobody is watching "barely legal" porn thinking they're intending to portray children.

That is an argument?
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Yes. Can you rebut it? I bet you can't.
Click to expand...
Consumers getting off on porn that suits their algorithmically fed taste for increasingly underage looking performers isn't a thing? Michael Sheath isn't the only one to talk about escalating pathways.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
You said: In the UK there is no "barely legal" it is either legal or illegal.

That is not a true statement - on the net it's legal but in the cinema it is illegal - all within the same country - the UK.
Click to expand...
Again does not support your claim of there being "barely legal" pornography, there is legal and illegal. Where something is displayed can of course change legal to illegal and vice-a-versa but there is still no such thing as barley legal pornography. And let me remind you of the context: you asked if someone would let someone who watched totally and utterly unequivocally legal pornography look after your kids. In the UK your term "barely legal pornography" means "totally and utterly unequivocally legal pornography".
 
Darat said:
Again does not support your claim of there being "barely legal" pornography, there is legal and illegal. Where something is displayed can of course change legal to illegal and vice-a-versa but there is still no such thing as barley legal pornography. And let me remind you of the context: you asked if someone would let someone who watched totally and utterly unequivocally legal pornography look after your kids. In the UK your term "barely legal pornography" means "totally and utterly unequivocally legal pornography".
Click to expand...
You are focusing on it's legality on the internet. DVDs with such content are illegal in the UK - so the point is that such material is considered harmful by many experts...to the point of making it totally illegal.
 
Yeah but maaaan! It's so close to the liiiine man!

IDK maybe Poem is asking about someone who downloads a legal internet video and then burns it to a... wait no the DVD laws are for clearing commercial publications. Hm. Don't actually see a way to create a grey area here. It's either legal, or it's not. The stricter DVD laws are about publishing, not consuming.

ETA unless I'm wrong? Do they bust people for having non-UK commercial porn DVDs in their collection?
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
Yeah but maaaan! It's so close to the liiiine man!

IDK maybe Poem is asking about someone who downloads a legal internet video and then burns it to a... wait no the DVD laws are for clearing commercial publications. Hm. Don't actually see a way to create a grey area here. It's either legal, or it's not. The stricter DVD laws are about publishing, not consuming.

ETA unless I'm wrong? Do they bust people for having non-UK commercial porn DVDs in their collection?
Click to expand...
I'm saying the warning signs are right in front of us.
 
One of the problems is that you can't just achieve safety by deciding that things that a lot of relatively harmless people do, are warning signs. Many of the most dangerous people don't show any warning signs.

IMO, for warning signs, you want stuff like 'demonstrates poor impulse control' or 'seems to think of people/kids as objects/property' or 'doesn't have any healthy emotional outlets' rather than 'consumes problematic media.'

I'd be far more worried about excessive consumption than the (legal) content, tbh.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
One of the problems is that you can't just achieve safety by deciding that things that a lot of relatively harmless people do, are warning signs. Many of the most dangerous people don't show any warning signs.

IMO, for warning signs, you want stuff like 'demonstrates poor impulse control' or 'seems to think of people/kids as objects/property' or 'doesn't have any healthy emotional outlets' rather than 'consumes problematic media.'

I'd be far more worried about excessive consumption than the (legal) content, tbh.
Click to expand...
Confusing for me.
 
I'm not concerned at all. One, there is little to no evidence that porn leads to rape. In fact, the opposite is possibly true. That it provides an outlet and a substitute. Let's be honest about sex. Less attractive and less wealthy individuals have less opportunities for sex. This leads to resentment, ie: incels. Individuals who might be inclined to force their repressed desires on individuals who are not interested in their advances.
 
Darat said:
Again does not support your claim of there being "barely legal" pornography, there is legal and illegal. Where something is displayed can of course change legal to illegal and vice-a-versa but there is still no such thing as barley legal pornography. And let me remind you of the context: you asked if someone would let someone who watched totally and utterly unequivocally legal pornography look after your kids. In the UK your term "barely legal pornography" means "totally and utterly unequivocally legal pornography".
Click to expand...
"Barely legal" is indeed a term that is used in the porn industry. It's a tag, like "GILF" and "MMF" and "Bubble Butt". It says nothing about the actual legality or otherwise of the content.
 
theprestige said:
I'm not inclined to trust the mores of someone who knows what a nubile fifteen year old looks like, as opposed to a nubile nineteen year old.
Click to expand...
You aren't inclined to trust Rice for what reason? He works (or worked) in the industry and is describing what he has seen. Why are you resisting the notion that there is a huge market for underage-looking porn actors/actresses?

No response?
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
"Barely legal" is indeed a term that is used in the porn industry. It's a tag, like "GILF" and "MMF" and "Bubble Butt". It says nothing about the actual legality or otherwise of the content.
Click to expand...
Illegal on Blu Ray, DVD, Video on demand and in cinema in the UK.
 
arthwollipot said:
So?
Click to expand...
So your assertion that:
arthwollipot said:
Are you asking whether it should be illegal for an adult actor to portray a person younger than 18? It's done all the time. I believe I've cited many mainstream movies and TV shows where actors who are older than 18 portray people younger than 18. Sometimes they're even portrayed doing illegal acts. But it's fiction so it isn't illegal.
Click to expand...
is not a true statement. It only tells some of the story.
 
Poem said:
So your assertion that:

is not a true statement. It only tells some of the story.
Click to expand...
But it is a true statement. It is not illegal for an actor in a film to portray a person performing an illegal act. Otherwise there would be no Godfather. No Ocean's Eleven. No John Wick. It is therefore not illegal for an adult in a film to portray performing an illegal sex act with an actor who is portraying a minor. Even if that were what is actually happening which it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom