• 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:
Ah, I apologise, I got this mixed up with a different tangent about whether people would be comfortable with their own partners' actions. I retract my sass; it was unearned.
Click to expand...
but that is what i am exploring....see above.
 
Poem said:
Could be my bad, but I am still not 100% clear. Are you saying that (and I know you have referred to a polyamory relationship but let's assume just a couple for the moment - and call them A & B) - are you saying if B wants to watch porn and/or have sex with C-Z, it is ultimately actually none of A's concern? What B is doing, as you said, is entirely up to you them and none of anybody else's business. If A disapproves, then I infer that you think they are doing so because of a religious root?
Click to expand...
You seriously misunderstand the nature of polyamorous relationships. But that's okay because most people do. I'm happy to enlighten you. Any day you learn something is a good day, right?

Specifically, your use of the phrase "none of A's concern" is the problem. In a polyamorous relationship, everything is everybody's "concern". What is done is done with consent. In your hypothetical, B is free to watch porn and have sex with other people if and only if A consents to it. And vice versa, according to the agreement that A and B have between them. You see, polyamory requires free and open communication between all involved. You can't be in a poly relationship if you are not actively consulting with all parties before doing anything sexual. Which is true of all kinds of relationships as it turns out.

Polyamory is not a free for all. Polyamory is an agreement made between consenting adults. The exact nature of the agreement can and does vary greatly, but it does not and can not work if there isn't an explicitly stated agreement in place. Any new developments must be added to the agreement before any activity can take place.

You got better when you crossed out "you" and replaced it with "them" though. The plural pronoun. If there is a poly group, what they do within the bounds of their relationship is nobody's business but theirs.

Poem said:
The latter...though I have done some research now.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry.
 
arthwollipot said:
Because porn where the actors do give the impression that they are minors is already banned. As @Darat pointed out.
Click to expand...
No it is not. It is available on the net and legal. Darat is wrong.
arthwollipot said:
They just want to expand definitions to include more and more porn because they have been convinced by religious moralisation that porn is bad.
Click to expand...
You didn't substantiate that.
 
Poem said:
No it is not. It is available on the net and legal. Darat is wrong.
Click to expand...
That something exists does not mean it isn't illegal. In the UK porn portraying that the performers are under 18 is illegal regardless of the manner if distribution. I provided you the primary sources.
 
In Australia, even animated porn that portrays sexual activities between under 18s is illegal. I call it "No-child-was-harmed-in-the-making-of-this-porn porn".

I also call it thoughtcrime. Because it is.
 
That's why the term "Pseudo photograph" was added into the UK definitions, it covers all the "non real" ways to produce such porn.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
That something exists does not mean it isn't illegal. In the UK porn portraying that the performers are under 18 is illegal regardless of the manner if distribution. I provided you the primary sources.
Click to expand...
Of course I woud refer you back to #3,700 where I cite Bertin unambiguously stating that:
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.

Nobody in the UK will be convicted if they watch this material on the internet.

The original context of this discussion was my assertion that societies, including the UK, are uncivilised because we allow this content and you pushed back with what you still maintain is the UK's ban. You are wrong.
 
Poem said:
Of course I woud refer you back to #3,700 where I cite Bertin unambiguously stating that:
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.

Nobody in the UK will be convicted if they watch this material on the internet.

The original context of this discussion was my assertion that societies, including the UK, are uncivilised because we allow this content and you pushed back with what you still maintain is the UK's ban. You are wrong.
Click to expand...
Fringe reset.

1) The UK has for centuries had regulation of entertainment that is different regarding how the entertainment is produced, distributed or consumed based on many different criteria.
2) In the UK it is illegal to consume, produce or distribute pornography that either uses under 18 year olds or gives the appearance of doing so.
3) In the UK if you do any of what is described in 2) you will be subject to up to a 10 year prison sentences, an unlimited fine and will be placed on the sex offenders register.
4) The origin of this strand of discussion was your question if someone would be happy using someone who watches "barely legal" porn looking after their children. There is no such thing in the UK as barely legal porn, porn is either legal or not. So I said to you that you were simply asking if someone would be happy someone who watched legal porn was looking after their kids.
 
Darat said:
Fringe reset.

1) The UK has for centuries had regulation of entertainment that is different regarding how the entertainment is produced, distributed or consumed based on many different criteria.
2) In the UK it is illegal to consume, produce or distribute pornography that either uses under 18 year olds or gives the appearance of doing so.
3) In the UK if you do any of what is described in 2) you will be subject to up to a 10 year prison sentences, an unlimited fine and will be placed on the sex offenders register.
4) The origin of this strand of discussion was your question if someone would be happy using someone who watches "barely legal" porn looking after their children. There is no such thing in the UK as barely legal porn, porn is either legal or not. So I said to you that you were simply asking if someone would be happy someone who watched legal porn was looking after their kids.
Click to expand...
Are you an expert in this area of UK law? You might be. Are you? Why is Bertin et al affirming that: Under the extreme (illegal) pornography offence this content does not meet the ‘illegal’ threshold...
?
 
why he is saying something that is right or wrong seems immaterial to whether or not he is or isn’t
 
dirtywick said:
it means bertins motivation for affirming something isn’t relevant to whether or not what he’s affirming is correct or incorrect
Click to expand...
I got confused because Bertin is a she.

We can question everyone's motivation, including posters on this forum.
 
Poem said:
Are you an expert in this area of UK law? You might be. Are you? Why is Bertin et al affirming that: Under the extreme (illegal) pornography offence this content does not meet the ‘illegal’ threshold...
?
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't. And being one of the few people to have been heavily involved in appealing an outright BBFC "ban" and winning and forcing them to certify our media I do actually have some expertise regarding how the classification system works in the UK, one of my proudest professional momentos is the certificate we won. (And a "ban" is a slight misnomer as the BBFC does not ban films or other media, what they can do is withhold a certificate, which of course is the same as a ban in affect in regard to commercial use.)

You need the appropriate certificate to publicly distribute (commercially or not) certain types of media in the UK, we are most use to seeing it on films being shown in public cinemas and on games. You do not need to have a certificate to produce any kind of content in the UK, if that content is to remain private to you i.e. not being publicly distributed you don't need any certificate.

Now the internet and non-physical media are not regulated the same way. This is why you probably won't see a BBFC certificate on content you are watching that is being streamed from Netflix even though to legally be shown in a public UK cinema it would have required a certificate. You will see they will often slap their own certificate on it. And you won't see a BBFC certificate on Youtube content for the same reason. The BBFC does not have any authority over that. Broadcast TV it is regulated by Ofcom, again outside of the BBFC's remit.

None of that however covers illegal porn, and the reason for that is that illegal porn is dealt with by criminal laws, as I have previously cited for you, and yes although we've been mainly discussing the content made to appear to be using performers under 18 there are also other categories that are illegal. You can read about those in the cites I gave you a few days back.
 
Poem said:
I got confused because Bertin is a she.

We can question everyone's motivation, including posters on this forum.
Click to expand...

oh ok. then i guess i don’t know why you’re asking darat about bertin’s motives
 
Darat said:
Because it doesn't. And being one of the few people to have been heavily involved in appealing an outright BBFC "ban" and winning and forcing them to certify our media I do actually have some expertise regarding how the classification system works in the UK, one of my proudest professional momentos is the certificate we won. (And a "ban" is a slight misnomer as the BBFC does not ban films or other media, what they can do is withhold a certificate, which of course is the same as a ban in affect in regard to commercial use.)

You need the appropriate certificate to publicly distribute (commercially or not) certain types of media in the UK, we are most use to seeing it on films being shown in public cinemas and on games. You do not need to have a certificate to produce any kind of content in the UK, if that content is to remain private to you i.e. not being publicly distributed you don't need any certificate.

Now the internet and non-physical media are not regulated the same way. This is why you probably won't see a BBFC certificate on content you are watching that is being streamed from Netflix even though to legally be shown in a public UK cinema it would have required a certificate. You will see they will often slap their own certificate on it. And you won't see a BBFC certificate on Youtube content for the same reason. The BBFC does not have any authority over that. Broadcast TV it is regulated by Ofcom, again outside of the BBFC's remit.

None of that however covers illegal porn, and the reason for that is that illegal porn is dealt with by criminal laws, as I have previously cited for you, and yes although we've been mainly discussing the content made to appear to be using performers under 18 there are also other categories that are illegal. You can read about those in the cites I gave you a few days back.
Click to expand...
On the one hand you say such content does not meet the illegal threshold (you said: because it doesn't), and yet you affirm (regarding the Bonnie Blue classroom content):
Darat said:
I'm totally confused: why are you pointing me to porn that is already illegal in the UK as porn that needs to be banned?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom