• 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?

Ziggurat said:
This isn't an argument from authority. It's not true because Darat said it, but it is still true. The reason I noted that Darat already pointed this out is because you don't really have an excuse for not knowing this by now.
Click to expand...
#3,730

Ms Bertin, the UK porn taskforce and Children's Commissioner are all saying the same thing: it is not illegal online. That's just the UK. The US makes this kind of content legally (care of the Free Speech Coalition).
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
No, it really isn't. What ever gave you that impression? The problem with an absence of marriage from a religious standpoint has never been that children don't happen. You'd need to be an idiot to think religion doesn't recognize that not only can this happen, it does happen.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should have said "should not and must not".
 
Poem said:
(...) Porn like the Bonnie Blue classroom video (featuring actors that look very young (which you describe as abhorrent)) is NOT ILLEGAL on the internet. (...)
Click to expand...
'very young' is a comparative term and does not equal underage. 'very short' as in 'they were cast for being very short' can just as easily mean 5'3 as 3'3. I think it's clear from context that the 'abhorrent' referred to there was 'porn made to give the impression of underage participants' as opposed to 'porn made with the youngest looking pornstars at the studio' especially when the youngest looking pornstars at the studio are 25 years old passing for 18.
 
Poem said:
If it was realistic - yes.

Some porn actors do look underage.
Click to expand...
If "looking underage" is the straw your grasping to prove the prevalence of rape culture, I think your case is weak. I can buy that suggestive props used by the actors could be problematic if they signal actual children such as lollipops and toys, or using grossly underdeveloped performers, but that's quite different from using performers who simply could pass as underage in a particular jurisdiction.

I think people from certain countries mentioned in previous posts have far more of a rape culture given their relative lack of inhibition and social attitudes that discourage women from speaking out, which is what I thought the thread was about.
 
Lithrael said:
'very young' is a comparative term and does not equal underage. 'very short' as in 'they were cast for being very short' can just as easily mean 5'3 as 3'3. I think it's clear from context that the 'abhorrent' referred to there was 'porn made to give the impression of underage participants' as opposed to 'porn made with the youngest looking pornstars at the studio' especially when the youngest looking pornstars at the studio are 25 years old passing for 18.
Click to expand...
What we know is that porn featuring actors that look underage (and with the use of dress and props etc
deliberately intends to give that impression) is very popular. As Art pointed out, it's on another level in Japan.

In the name of free speech, the US made such content legal in 2002.
 
Last edited:
Venom said:
If "looking underage" is the straw your grasping to prove the prevalence of rape culture, I think your case is weak. I can buy that suggestive props used by the actors could be problematic if they signal actual children such as lollipops and toys, or using grossly underdeveloped performers, but that's quite different from using performers who simply could pass as underage in a particular jurisdiction.

I think people from certain countries mentioned in previous posts have far more of a rape culture given their relative lack of inhibition and social attitudes that discourage women from speaking out, which is what I thought the thread was about.
Click to expand...
I concede that the thread title doesn't reflect, in full, the OP focus on porn.
 
Ziggurat said:
Then it’s not an assumption. It’s a conclusion. You can disagree with that conclusion if you want to, although data suggests they have a point.
Click to expand...
No, it's an assumption. When I went somewhere with my partner and our son, the assumption was always that she was my wife. 100% of the time. The very idea of an unmarried couple having children was scandalous even within living memory. I don't know if you're old enough, but do you remember the TV show Murphy Brown? Do you remember the outrage when the titular character decided to have a child out of wedlock? The shock? The scandal? The calls for the show to be cancelled?

Poem said:
You have a problem with a contract that pledges relationship commitment - which, if maintained, would be a strong foundation for child rearing?
Click to expand...
Yes I do. Because in the end, that "contract" means absolutely nothing. If people are committed to a relationship, then they don't need a "contract", and if they're not, the "contract" will be meaningless. My partners and I reared two healthy and happy children to adulthood quite nicely thank you without being married, not that it would even have been possible. But once again we're getting personal.

Let's say the quiet part out loud, shall we? Traditional marriage is a patriarchal arrangement to ensure financial and legal succession that was very quickly taken over by the religions in deep history. It does not, and never has, had anything to do with "commitment". It has everything to do with patriarchy and control. Ephesians 5:22-24. Anything different is a very recent innovation, historically speaking.

That having been said, I have attended many weddings, including my son's, which is over now (so much for commitment), and have even been Best Man at one, which also only lasted a few years (ain't no-fault divorce great?). And at every one I was very happy for the couple, both of whom entered into the "contract" of their own free will. I have never been a person who yucks someone's yum, and if that is their choice, then who the ◊◊◊◊ am I to tell them they shouldn't?
 
arthwollipot said:
Yes I do. Because in the end, that "contract" means absolutely nothing. If people are committed to a relationship, then they don't need a "contract", and if they're not, the "contract" will be meaningless. My partners and I reared two healthy and happy children to adulthood quite nicely thank you without being married, not that it would even have been possible. But once again we're getting personal.

Let's say the quiet part out loud, shall we? Traditional marriage is a patriarchal arrangement to ensure financial and legal succession that was very quickly taken over by the religions in deep history. It does not, and never has, had anything to do with "commitment". It has everything to do with patriarchy and control. Ephesians 5:22-24. Anything different is a very recent innovation, historically speaking.

That having been said, I have attended many weddings, including my son's, which is over now (so much for commitment), and have even been Best Man at one, which also only lasted a few years (ain't no-fault divorce great?). And at every one I was very happy for the couple, both of whom entered into the "contract" of their own free will. I have never been a person who yucks someone's yum, and if that is their choice, then who the ◊◊◊◊ am I to tell them they shouldn't?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that we are disagreeing - even though you think we are. I am more interested in commitment than the marriage certificate per se - though, of course, it does provide legal reinforcement.

Rather than frame this as a problem with patriarchy, I would focus on everyone's (the degree will vary) selfishness - especially in relationships. Commitment, whether it be merely spoken or in a marriage ceremony, is difficult for us humans. And porn will only exacerbate that.

This subject is a huge one and probably needs it's own thread...though I don't mind discussing here.
 
What I really object to is the title of this thread. There is little evidence to suggest that watching porn leads to an increase in rape. So calling what we live in a rape society false.
 
Venom said:
If "looking underage" is the straw your grasping to prove the prevalence of rape culture, I think your case is weak. I can buy that suggestive props used by the actors could be problematic if they signal actual children such as lollipops and toys, or using grossly underdeveloped performers, but that's quite different from using performers who simply could pass as underage in a particular jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
The problem identified is the mixing of the two - young looking with the props....a deliberate attempt at simulated child porn.
 
Venom said:
If "looking underage" is the straw your grasping to prove the prevalence of rape culture, I think your case is weak. I can buy that suggestive props used by the actors could be problematic if they signal actual children such as lollipops and toys, or using grossly underdeveloped performers, but that's quite different from using performers who simply could pass as underage in a particular jurisdiction.

I think people from certain countries mentioned in previous posts have far more of a rape culture given their relative lack of inhibition and social attitudes that discourage women from speaking out, which is what I thought the thread was about.
Click to expand...

i agree and i think poem knows the distinction and has repeatedly implied it’s the former to make it seem worse than it is. which is a little strange, being as how poem hasn’t seen and refuses to look at the content itself and is relying on their worse interpretation of some else’s description of the content.

in any case, it’s a little unavoidable that some porn performers look very young, particularly in the barely legal category where it’s mostly women who were, until recently, underage. many young men legally seeking out porn find themselves in a similar situation
 
dirtywick said:
i agree and i think poem knows the distinction and has repeatedly implied it’s the former to make it seem worse than it is. which is a little strange, being as how poem hasn’t seen and refuses to look at the content itself and is relying on their worse interpretation of some else’s description of the content.
Click to expand...
According to Darat, I could end up in prison if I did watch it. He is wrong though.

In any case, who should we believe regarding the extent of the problem? I've quoted from those who work (or worked) in the industry - Dillon Rice and Tracey Sweet. There have been others. If you think this is a small issue then the onus is on you.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Well, it was posed as a question, and answered over 3,000 posts ago.

A resounding " No "!
Click to expand...
Nevertheless the title lives on promoting that idea. It's an old sales and marketing/advertising tactic. It's not like the answer matters. That's why I object to it.
 
Poem said:
According to Darat, I could end up in prison if I did watch it. He is wrong though.

In any case, who should we believe regarding the extent of the problem? I've quoted from those who work (or worked) in the industry - Dillon Rice and Tracey Sweet. There have been others. If you think this is a small issue then the onus is on you.
Click to expand...

you’re making claims and i don’t find your evidence to be convincing. this onus on me is making me a little nervous but i’m not sure what to do with it
 
Well, I finally got around to trying to see if I could find screenshots of this Bonnie Blue classroom orgy thing and instead the first thing I find is that she cast random inexperienced Onlyfans models, not established porn actresses. And they were not paid. I think I have a much bigger problem with her business practices than with the idea that she put these girls in school ties & blazers.
 
Lithrael said:
Well, I finally got around to trying to see if I could find screenshots of this Bonnie Blue classroom orgy thing and instead the first thing I find is that she cast random inexperienced Onlyfans models, not established porn actresses. And they were not paid. I think I have a much bigger problem with her business practices than with the idea that she put these girls in school ties & blazers.
Click to expand...
There is lots of porn with the school girl trope. 30 year old women in school girl uniforms.
 
acbytesla said:
There is lots of porn with the school girl trope. 30 year old women in school girl uniforms.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I didn't end up finding a lot of good photos (seems like despite doing this stuff for influencer clout, Bonnie didn't hire a photographer who could compose a good shot) but as far as I could tell the youngest looking cast member was one of the guys and yeah he looked about 18, apparantly cause he was 18.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom