• 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?

arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...
No it is not - not in the UK when it's barely legal porn. You seem reluctant to acknowledge this.
 
arthwollipot said:
You seem to be reluctant to acknowledge that porn is fiction.
Click to expand...
There is a fictional element - but, as already noted, pretty much anyone could act out a good degree of what they see on camera. That is what some are doing - especially young men.

We are going round in circles. I think the thread is done.
 
Poem said:
Illegal on Blu Ray, DVD, Video on demand and in cinema in the UK.
Click to expand...
This really isn't the big "gotcha" you seem to think it is. We have had different legislation that covers different media, different medium, different means of distribution etc. for literally centuries in this country. It was illegal for the movie "Life of Brian" to be shown in Aberystwyth until nearly 30 years after its release, but it could be legally shown in the rest of the country. That didn't make "Life of Brian" barely legal. A TV broadcaster must follow different laws to an internet streamer, which doesn't make the BBC legal and Netflix "barely legal", it means both are legal.
 
Poem said:
No it is not - not in the UK when it's barely legal porn. You seem reluctant to acknowledge this.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't be "barely legal porn", it would be illegal porn. If what Arth described was in a porn movie it would in fact be illegal in the UK, the actual age of the performers is irrelevant in such a scenario. However, if it were part of a non-porn movie then it could be legal.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
This really isn't the big "gotcha" you seem to think it is. We have had different legislation that covers different media, different medium, different means of distribution etc. for literally centuries in this country. It was illegal for the movie "Life of Brian" to be shown in Aberystwyth until nearly 30 years after its release, but it could be legally shown in the rest of the country. That didn't make "Life of Brian" barely legal. A TV broadcaster must follow different laws to an internet streamer, which doesn't make the BBC legal and Netflix "barely legal", it means both are legal.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point. Barely legal porn is banned in this country for a reason - it is considered harmful.
 
Last edited:
The legacy of those that defend porn (from the above Guardian article):

The documentary also includes footage of Tia Billinger, whose stage name is Bonnie Blue, in a classroom preparing to film an orgy with a group of models dressed in school uniform; the performers acknowledge that they have been selected because they look very young.
 
I got a great big 'yes, and?' for that one. Of course they'd cast the youngest looking performers in that. And school age doesn't even mean underage. Not to mention it's fiction.

A classroom orgy sounds fun as a fantasy. IRL, morals completely aside, it would be so incredibly icky. Have you SEEN the state of most teenagers? Stop the orgy, everyone go wash your hands.
 
Poem said:
You are missing the point. Barely legal porn is banned in this country for a reason - it is considered harmful.
Click to expand...
There is no such classification in the UK of barely legal porn. It is either legal or illegal porn. That something delivered by way of one media may be illegal and not illegal in a different medium does not make it barely legal.
 
Poem said:
Posted this only just recently but is germane here -
https://www.theguardian.com/society...egal-content-after-channel-4-documentary-airs

Lady Bertin said she planned to lodge amendments to the crime and policing bill in the autumn to make it illegal for online platforms to host any content that could encourage child sexual abuse, including pornography filmed by adults dressed as children.
Click to expand...
Thanks for showing there is not "barely legal" porn in the UK and that even the tag on pornographic websites of "barely legal" is not illegal in the UK, it is simple legal porn.
 
Darat said:
Thanks for showing there is not "barely legal" porn in the UK and that even the tag on pornographic websites of "barely legal" is not illegal in the UK, it is simple legal porn.
Click to expand...
The porn that fits the 'barely legal' label is banned offline in the UK. It's banned for a good reason.
 
Poem said:
The porn that fits the 'barely legal' label is banned offline in the UK. It's banned for a good reason.
Click to expand...
But it isn't even. What you can't pass rating to publish on DVD in the UK is 'scenarios made to look as though the actors are underage' and 'barely legal' is 'scenarios made to look as though the actors are juuuust this side of being legal adults.'

The 'barely legal' genre is NOT about minors, not even fictional ones.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
The legacy of those that defend porn (from the above Guardian article):

The documentary also includes footage of Tia Billinger, whose stage name is Bonnie Blue, in a classroom preparing to film an orgy with a group of models dressed in school uniform; the performers acknowledge that they have been selected because they look very young.
Click to expand...

The article is wrong or perhaps better it doesn't quite get it right and it uses a similar framing trick to you: This regulatory anomaly means adults role-playing as children to create pornography that appears close to child sexual abuse imagery is not prohibited online.

The current laws are clear you cannot produce nor view what in the Protection of Children act of 1978 (Amended) was termed "pseudo-photographs i.e. images that appear to show children even if no child was involved. This was further extended in the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 which raised the definition of children to be under 18 not under 16. This made pornography which depicts someone as being under 18 even if the performer is older illegal. So in the UK any pornography - and it does not matter if it is video, computer generated, hand animated etc. or how it is distributed - that makes it look like or implies that the performers are under 18 can be treated as indecent images of children which would mean that everyone involved, from the performers to the camera people to the editor to the publisher and the people who view it could be liable for up to 10 years of imprisonment, an unlimited fine and being placed on the sex offenders register.
 
Poem said:
The porn that fits the 'barely legal' label is banned offline in the UK. It's banned for a good reason.
Click to expand...
Again this is just acknowledging that different laws apply to different distribution channels, media etc. Please see my post above for more details. I can provide you the references from the various acts of parliament if you want them.
 
Lithrael said:
But it isn't even. What you can't pass rating to publish on DVD in the UK is 'scenarios made to look as though the actors are underage' and 'barely legal' is 'scenarios made to look as though the actors are juuuust this side of being legal adults.'

The 'barely legal' genre is NOT about minors, not even fictional ones.
Click to expand...
Sophistry.
 
Poem said:
Sophistry.
Click to expand...
Sophistry? To point out that by definition, the 'barely legal' genre features performers of legal age? That the entire pitch of the genre is 'they just turned 18!' and NOT 'we dressed them like they're 12?'

And that you keep using the term to mean the latter, for some reason?
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
The article is wrong or perhaps better it doesn't quite get it right and it uses a similar framing trick to you: This regulatory anomaly means adults role-playing as children to create pornography that appears close to child sexual abuse imagery is not prohibited online.

The current laws are clear you cannot produce nor view what in the Protection of Children act of 1978 (Amended) was termed "pseudo-photographs i.e. images that appear to show children even if no child was involved. This was further extended in the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 which raised the definition of children to be under 18 not under 16. This made pornography which depicts someone as being under 18 even if the performer is older illegal. So in the UK any pornography - and it does not matter if it is video, computer generated, hand animated etc. or how it is distributed - that makes it look like or implies that the performers are under 18 can be treated as indecent images of children which would mean that everyone involved, from the performers to the camera people to the editor to the publisher and the people who view it could be liable for up to 10 years of imprisonment, an unlimited fine and being placed on the sex offenders register.
Click to expand...
I don't see how this makes any discernible difference. Sounds like the internet producers can just waive their hands and say it isn't portraying anyone underage.
 
Lithrael said:
Sophistry? To point out that by definition, the 'barely legal' genre features performers of legal age? That the entire pitch of the genre is 'they just turned 18!' and NOT 'we dressed them like they're 12?'

And that you keep using the term to mean the latter, for some reason?
Click to expand...
Spin to justify it's continued legality.
 
It is literally not spin. It's actual facts on the ground. What are you on about?

The 'barely legal' genre IS about LEGAL ADULTS. It is NOT about making anyone look like minors.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom