• 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?

Lithrael said:
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.
Click to expand...
Drunk the Kool Aid.
 
????
Lithrael said:
The 'barely legal' genre IS about LEGAL ADULTS. It is NOT about making anyone look like minors.
Click to expand...
Poem said:
Drunk the Kool Aid.
Click to expand...
Would you like to make an argument or even an assertion?

All I'm saying is that 'barely legal' is simply not the genre description for porn where anyone tries to give the impression that they could be a minor. Honestly I don't know what is. 'ageplay' maybe?

Practically all the times I saw 'barely legal' plastered on videos was back when 'girls gone wild / spring break wherever' was big, and iirc they were literally checking partying girls' IDs and tittering over them in those. I honestly don't remember if there was even any porn in them, they seemed to mostly be dancing, flashing, and making out sloppy style.

The producer did get in trouble for both failing to collect legal documentation and using flashed nudity footage from people who didn't actually consent, as well as being a scumbag. Color me surprised.

But most porn does not use 'exploit drunk girls at big parties' as a business paradigm.

'Barely legal' is the genre description for porn where the performer tries to give the impression that they were a minor recently. That they just got done with being a minor. That is what it is. No spin.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
'Barely legal' is simply not the genre description for porn where anyone tries to give the impression that they could be a minor.

'Barely legal' is the genre description for porn where the performer tries to give the impression that they were a minor recently. That they just got done with being a minor. That is what it is. No spin.
Click to expand...
 
'Barely legal' is simply not the genre description for porn where anyone tries to give the impression that they could be a minor.

'Barely legal' is the genre description for porn where the performer tries to give the impression that they were a minor recently. That they just got done with being a minor. That is what it is. No spin.

The UK pornography taskforce is proposing to ban ‘barely legal’ because none of the actors give the impression that they are minors? Why do they want to ban it?
 
Poem said:
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?
Click to expand...

i think there’s a huge market of young adults with an age appropriate attraction to those types of models too. unless there’s a problem with that?
 
Poem said:
Baroness Bertin told the PA news agency: “We would seek to bring parity with what is legal offline and what is legal online.
Click to expand...
“Violence against women and girls is a national emergency, and this government is committed to halving it within a decade."

No, the government is not committed to anything of the sort. I wish it were, but it isn't. Want to cut down on violence against women and girls? Fix your ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up immigration issues. Actually prosecute your groomer gangs. Target the people who are actually committing violence against women and girls.

Going after porn is a way to posture, to say you're doing something without having to address the actual, important problems. Because going after the actual problems would piss people off that the government isn't willing to piss off.
 
Poem said:
The UK pornography taskforce is proposing to ban ‘barely legal’ because none of the actors give the impression that they are minors? Why do they want to ban it?
Click to expand...
It sounds to me as though they don't have a good headliney way to say 'porn that presents actors as minors' so they are using 'barely legal' to stand in for that, in a way the industry does not.

That is, it's a conflation, possibly an intentional one.

This isn't even ambiguous. Nobody else besides articles/task force talking points like these say 'barely legal' in one breath and 'made in a way to suggest the subject is a minor' in the next.

A typical slang dictionary says:

barely legal​

adjective​

  • appearing barely above the age of consent. Used frequently in pornography.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
“Violence against women and girls is a national emergency, and this government is committed to halving it within a decade."

No, the government is not committed to anything of the sort. I wish it were, but it isn't. Want to cut down on violence against women and girls? Fix your ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up immigration issues. Actually prosecute your groomer gangs. Target the people who are actually committing violence against women and girls.

Going after porn is a way to posture, to say you're doing something without having to address the actual, important problems. Because going after the actual problems would piss people off that the government isn't willing to piss off.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the slightly prejudiced tone of your post, those are reactive policies and will do little to reduce violence against women and girls in the long run. What would reduce violence against women and girls is providing different inputs to young males to alter the attitude they have towards women and girls. By different inputs I mean such things not growing up in poverty, providing good healthcare, education and early intervention if they are struggling. Providing such things would mostly piss off Conservative and Reform voters who think everyone should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps like they believe they (or their great grandad) did, or be hit with ever bigger sticks until they do.
 
You know who is less vulnerable to getting groomed for gangs/cults/trafficking? People who don't live with their backs to the wall, who know they have real options, who don't find it easy to believe bad actors when they say 'if you try to get out now it's you who will suffer, not me, your life is already ruined, you'll have nobody on your side and you don't have anywhere to go but down.'
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
Ignoring the slightly prejudiced tone of your post, those are reactive policies and will do little to reduce violence against women and girls in the long run. What would reduce violence against women and girls is providing different inputs to young males to alter the attitude they have towards women and girls.
Click to expand...
You seem to think you're contradicting me here, but you aren't. You can do nothing about the "inputs" that a 20-year old male "refugee" from Syria or Libya has received. Those "inputs" are pathological, you cannot correct them after the fact (especially when your criminal justice system is so lenient towards them), and bringing these people in is producing problems.
Ivor the Engineer said:
By different inputs I mean such things not growing up in poverty
Click to expand...
Bull ◊◊◊◊. Poverty isn't the problem. Poverty isn't what leads males to think it's acceptable to commit violence against females. To the extent that poverty correlates, it's because of other factors, such as growing up without a father in the house. But you're not actually doing anything about those other factors either. You're doing the same thing that the anti-porn campaigners are doing: tying your own pet causes (ie, leftist politics) to the issue in order to advance what you really care about, not what you claim to care about.
Ivor the Engineer said:
Providing such things would mostly piss off Conservative and Reform voters
Click to expand...
That's really what you want. Violence against women? Not actually your concern.

Oh, and your ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up immigration situation is making it harder to provide all the social services you claim you want anyways.
 
Lithrael said:
You know who is less vulnerable to getting groomed for gangs/cults/trafficking? People who don't live with their backs to the wall, who know they have real options
Click to expand...
The only option you should need is to be able to tell the police, and have the police arrest and prosecute your victimizers.

Too bad so many children in the UK don't have that.
 
Ivor didn't say he wants to piss off Conservative and Reform voters, he said people won't get those things because it would piss off Conservative and Reform voters.
 
Lithrael said:
Ivor didn't say he wants to piss off Conservative and Reform voters, he said people won't get those things because it would piss off Conservative and Reform voters.
Click to expand...
Ivor is wrong about the nature of the problem.
 
Ziggurat said:
The only option you should need is to be able to tell the police, and have the police arrest and prosecute your victimizers.

Too bad so many children in the UK don't have that.
Click to expand...
This is a huge problem since forever, but I cannot buy that it's only just now a big deal and that the reason for it is genuinely cops being too worried about looking racist.

Let's start with maybe a convincing atmosphere that cops will take anyone seriously and ever bring a good outcome from a trafficking/abuse complaint from a young woman who's been in trouble before.
 
Ziggurat said:
Ivor is wrong about the nature of the problem.
Click to expand...
Even if he is wrong, Ivor is not more interested in 'pissing off Conservative and Reform voters' than preventing violence against women, which was your direct accusation.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
Even if he is wrong, Ivor is not more interested in 'pissing off Conservative and Reform voters' than preventing violence against women, which was your direct accusation.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know he didn't claim that. But I think it's a reasonable inference. Just like I think it's a reasonable inference that Poem doesn't care about preventing violence against women as much as he cares about banning porn.
 
Well, I know precisely none of my motivation on social issues has anything to do with going 'nyeh' to anybody at-◊◊◊◊◊◊◊-all so I may be projecting. But I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom