• 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?

Poem said:
Clearly you disagree that portraying over 18s as underage in porn is abhorrent; you just refuse to acknowledge that it is happening.
Click to expand...

i think there’s a distinct lack of clarity on the issue in your arguments, because your evidence is lacking when it’s not outright deceptive
 
It does look a little bit like you have to cherry pick to get to the impression that the industry is saturated with simulated underage porn.

There is some and I'm not against the idea of wanting to get rid of it.

I might be against specific strategies that amount to 'nuke it from orbit' though.
 
Poem said:
What will work better?
Click to expand...
That isn't the issue. The issue is that the suggested "solution" isn't a solution to anything.
Poem said:
Looking back it does appear that nobody has said so explicitly. I could ask. I think we can assume that US society, in general, approves of what you find abhorrent.

The notion that nobody in the UK can access that content just isn't a serious one. She has a website (and, no, I am not suggesting anyone looks). I think the central point is that the internet is out of control and essentially telling the UK and its laws to just ---- ---.
Click to expand...
But that isn't the case - the "tube" style sites have implemented the requirements the UK set out with our online safety legislation.

Poem said:
There won't be a painless option if you want to ban porn - which you do....some porn. Myriad lambasted me for not coming up with a definition. You would have a similar problem. If Tracey Sweet is correct - and she works (or worked) in the industry - then the problem is a huge one.
Click to expand...
I'm happy with the definition already in force in the UK via the various pieces of legislation, and the porn that I think shouldn't be allowed is already illegal, so we don't need to do anything at all to ensure that porn that either features performers under 18 or gives the appearance of it doing so is banned, it is already a serious criminal offence to view or have such material (as well as to produce it etc.)
 
Poem said:
Your position is at odds with Tracey Sweet's who says there is a huge market for actors looking like she does: pretty freaking young.
Click to expand...
At my age 18 year olds look "pretty freaking young", indeed I seem to have now reached the age of the "why do the police officers look young and younger" no longer being a joke. "freaking young" is hardly an actual age - how old is she?
 
Lithrael said:
It does look a little bit like you have to cherry pick to get to the impression that the industry is saturated with simulated underage porn.

There is some and I'm not against the idea of wanting to get rid of it.

I might be against specific strategies that amount to 'nuke it from orbit' though.
Click to expand...
It's the only way to be sure.
 
Lithrael said:
It does look a little bit like you have to cherry pick to get to the impression that the industry is saturated with simulated underage porn.

There is some and I'm not against the idea of wanting to get rid of it.

I might be against specific strategies that amount to 'nuke it from orbit' though.
Click to expand...

there is absolutely some, anyone can film and upload to these sites. the stuff exists. whether or not a user is exposed to those types of videos on the scale is a separate claim that anyone can verify on their own.
 
Poem said:
I asked for criticism of the documentary and you haven't offered anything.
Click to expand...

yeah you did, but i haven’t seen the documentary and don’t intend to watch it. unlike you, i’m not willing to speak to things i haven’t seen.
 
I have a 30 year old woman friend that looks like she is 15 to me. Is she "barely legal"?
 
Darat said:
That isn't the issue. The issue is that the suggested "solution" isn't a solution to anything.
Click to expand...
Which you haven't demonstrated. You clearly think you have a gotcha for the porn taskforce and that they are clueless.
Darat said:
But that isn't the case - the "tube" style sites have implemented the requirements the UK set out with our online safety legislation.
Click to expand...
Now you are switching subjects? What has that got to do with what we are talking about?
Darat said:
I'm happy with the definition already in force in the UK via the various pieces of legislation, and the porn that I think shouldn't be allowed is already illegal,
Click to expand...
Already illegal? Not according to the head of the online pornography review:
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.

Are you qualified to challenge this? Are you a legal expert? Anyone in the UK can go online right now (despite your warnings) and access that Bonnie Blue classroom orgy with impunity.
Darat said:
so we don't need to do anything at all to ensure that porn that either features performers under 18 or gives the appearance of it doing so is banned, it is already a serious criminal offence to view or have such material (as well as to produce it etc.)
Click to expand...
Clearly wrong.
 
Darat said:
I doubt I am. And if so - "So what?"

I wouldn't know as I would never even attempt to view any porn that I even thought might hint at having "under 18" content, whether by appearance or by performer. I would STRONGLY urge anyone in the UK in this discussion to not to try and research that at all. It is a serious criminal offence to view such material, and even viewing one frame could end up with you being in prison, fined and on the sex offenders register.
Click to expand...
The content you are talking about is legal in the UK.

This regulatory anomaly means adults role-playing as children to create pornography that appears close to child sexual abuse imagery is not prohibited online.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
It's called burying one's head in the sand.
Click to expand...
No, it's called we have better things to do with our time than spending hours watching religious propaganda. I will also shut the door on the Jehovah's Witnesses when they come knocking. I'm not interested in your religion. I'm beyond not interested. I have anti-interest in it.

Poem said:
And older types too. You just want to keep sanitising the porn industry.
Click to expand...
As you just want to keep poisoning it.

Poem said:
I don't watch porn.
Click to expand...
That is freaking obvious. You have no clue what you're talking about - you're just regurgitating religious propaganda intended to poison and destroy a whole industry of legal adult entertainment.

Lithrael said:
It does look a little bit like you have to cherry pick to get to the impression that the industry is saturated with simulated underage porn.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Darat said:
And to stop the deflection: Porn that tries to give the appearance that the performers are under 18 should be illegal, it should be treated exactly like porn that did use under 18-year-old performers.
Click to expand...
Including animated porn in which no human actors participate?
 
arthwollipot said:
That is freaking obvious. You have no clue what you're talking about - you're just regurgitating religious propaganda intended to poison and destroy a whole industry of legal adult entertainment.
Click to expand...
Tracey Sweet is quoted as saying there is a huge market for porn that looks underage. In case you don't know, she is (or was) a porn star.

I don't care if the film was made by Christians or the Free Speech Coalition - she is corroborating what others have been saying whom I have quoted. Remember Dillon Rice? - captured on undercover film by Sound Investigations stating that: For the ads - the dudes that do the most conversion rates are guys that look 15.

You need to quit making these vacuous assertions about religion and ignorance. You lost your credibility when you declared Pornhub as reputable and law-abiding.
 
Darat misleading UK residents:

I wouldn't know as I would never even attempt to view any porn that I even thought might hint at having "under 18" content, whether by appearance or by performer. I would STRONGLY urge anyone in the UK in this discussion to not to try and research that at all. It is a serious criminal offence to view such material, and even viewing one frame could end up with you being in prison, fined and on the sex offenders register.

The reality (Gabby Bertin - UK independent lead reviewer on regulating online pornography):

Violent, harmful, and misogynistic pornographic content (known in this Review as ‘legal but harmful pornography’) is common on mainstream platforms that host pornography. Under the extreme (illegal) pornography offence this content does not meet the ‘illegal’ threshold, however, it would be refused classification by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in the ‘offline’ world. This means that if this content was distributed in physical form (for example, in DVDs), the person supplying the material would face criminal charges, including a prison sentence of up to two years under the Video Recordings Act 1984.

If Bertin has got this wrong (but we know she isn't a lone voice), then she has grossly misled pornographers and UK consumers. But she isn't wrong and no UK resident will face any charges viewing such content online.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom