Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[acbytesla]

You couldn't care less about kids seeing porn.

Not really. No one has ever demonstrated the harm.

 

[ahhell]

Barely legal is literally legal. It's actors of legal age, portraying characters of legal age, performing acts that are legal for adults to perform.

While everything you say is true, the tag "barely legal" is also clearly meant to imply that they don't look it. So, I wouldn't say depraved but kind of skeevy and still not a good example of rape culture.

Poems whole argument seems to be that the west has a rape culture because there are adults who look young willing to have sex for money of other adults who want to watch.

The thing is, there is a huge difference between forced sex, sex with children, and sex with adults. Now if those adults actually look like children, that's gross but if they look like they might be 17.9 instead of 18.1, I mean really? That's your rape culture?

 

[acbytesla]

While everything you say is true, the tag "barely legal" is also clearly meant to imply that they don't look it. So, I wouldn't say depraved but kind of skeevy and still not a good example of rape culture.

Poems whole argument seems to be that the west has a rape culture because there are adults who look young willing to have sex for money of other adults who want to watch.

The thing is, there is a huge difference between forced sex, sex with children, and sex with adults. Now if those adults actually look like children, that's gross but if they look like they might be 17.9 instead of 18.1, I mean really? That's your rape culture?

No, it doesn't. It implies the actors are legal. Barely. It implies the actors aren't 45. That they are 18, 19, 20. Maybe even as old as 25. But like a lot of advertising, it is about baiting the consumer. You're arguing that people "infer" that they don't look it.

 

[dirtywick]

i'd say the tag is meant to imply that the actresses featured in the piece of pornography are of legal age, but just barely. so yeah, it's a category for content featuring what the viewer is meant to assume is younger women, often because they actually are which is easier than faking it. other than the fact that some people in this thread find it uncomfortable that an older man may also watch that same content, while not considering for a large segment of the porn consuming community this is a completely age appropriate attraction, i'm not really sure a good argument has been made that there's a problem with it existing.

the whole rape culture thing was abandoned very early in the thread. it's mostly poem flailing about trying to concoct scenarios where filming adult women having sex is actually child porn that wallpapers the internet

 

[theprestige]

While everything you say is true, the tag "barely legal" is also clearly meant to imply that they don't look it. So, I wouldn't say depraved but kind of skeevy and still not a good example of rape culture.

I can agree with that.

Poems whole argument seems to be that the west has a rape culture because there are adults who look young willing to have sex for money of other adults who want to watch.

I'd say that this is one of several half-arguments that Poem keeps bouncing between, without ever making a whole argument out of any of them.

 

[Poem]

While everything you say is true, the tag "barely legal" is also clearly meant to imply that they don't look it. So, I wouldn't say depraved but kind of skeevy and still not a good example of rape culture.

#4,247 confirms that if you haven't watched it already. Yes it is depraved.

Poems whole argument seems to be that the west has a rape culture because there are adults who look young willing to have sex for money of other adults who want to watch.

No, it only appears that way because of the recent discussion. Go back a look at the OP. Also note that rape has been effectively decriminalised in the UK. There are similar issues elsewhere.

If we go with google's definition of rape culture:
a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse.

and accept that showing porn to kids (in the UK at least) is sexual abuse (which, whilst it is about an adult doing so is de facto occurring with the reckless easy availability of internet porn), then, yes, there is a prevailing rape culture. I concede that the term does not accurately reflect what I aver. That there is a culture of hyper-sexualisation taking place that is having an huge impact on society (and particularly on children) is obvious.

 

[acbytesla]

There Poem goes again with that word depraved. He sure likes it. But Poem won't even define what is and what isn't depraved. I asked him if certain sexual acts were or weren't depraved and excuse the expression, he blew right passed it.

Why is that he won't define the words he uses? Is it that he only wants to use it as an ad hominem? Or maybe that once he defines his term the rest of us will roll our eyes after such pearl clutching?

 

[Poem]

There Poem goes again with that word depraved. He sure likes it. But Poem won't even define what is and what isn't depraved. I asked him if certain sexual acts were or weren't depraved and excuse the expression, he blew right passed it.

Why is that he won't define the words he uses? Is it that he only wants to use it as an ad hominem? Or maybe that once he defines his term the rest of us will roll our eyes after such pearl clutching?

You have used it and not defined it:

Propaganda or the spreading of lies to advance the religious agenda of a detestable religion is depraved.

Oh yes it is. There is almost no book ever written that is more depraved than the Bible. Maybe the Quran.

It means without morality.

Darat describes porn that intentionally portrays actors looking underage as abhorrent. I am going further and calling it depraved.

 

[Darat]

...snip... ny material that is potentially harmful, for example because it depicts and/or promotes child sexual abuse, trafficking, or violent sexual acts.

5. There is no equivalent standard to the BBFC’s regulation for online pornographic content as the internet has evolved largely without regulatory oversight.
(My emphasis)


The bottom line is point 5
. Without classification, then internet porn is...well, unclassified. No one will be prosecuted until the BBFC or equivalent determines a classification for each and every video.

Nope - not true, people are prosecuted. Again you not understanding the regulatory system in the UK and not understanding the current legislation is hampering your ability to argue any meaningful points.

I will try again:

It starts with the Protection of Children Act 1978, this originally criminalised the production or possession of indecent images of children under the age of 16, later amendments widened this by introduction of the term "pseudo-photographs which is defined as images that appear to show children even if no child was actually involved in the production. The definition of "child" was then amended in the Sexual Offences (2003) act to raise it to apply to under 18s. That means if the pornography depicts someone as being under 18 - even if the participant is older - it falls under the law. Then in 2009 via the Coroners and Justice Act it further criminalised possession or production of cartoon or computer-generated sexual images of minors i.e. those under or appear to be under 18. (This was to provide clearer guidance for new media.) What this means is even if an adult performer i.e. someone over 18 is made to appear to be under 18 and the material is pornographic it can be treated as indecent images of children.

For the cites supporting the above:

Protection of Children Act 1978 - annotated with the various amendments: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/section/1

[F1Subject to sections 1A and 1B,] it is an offence for a person—​

​

(a)to take, or permit to be taken [F2or to make], any indecent photograph [F2or pseudo-photograph] of a child F3. . .; or​

​

(b)to distribute or show such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs]; or​

​

(c)to have in his possession such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs], with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or​

​

(d)to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs], or intends to do so.​

​

(2)For purposes of this Act, a person is to be regarded as distributing an indecent photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] if he parts with possession of it to, or exposes or offers it for acquisition by, another person.​

Sexual Offences 2003 Act

Sexual Offences Act 2003

An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

45​

(1)The Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (which makes provision about indecent photographs of persons under 16) is amended as follows.​

​

(2)In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) (meaning of “child”), for “16” substitute “ 18 ”.​

Coroners and Justice Act 2009​

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

An Act to amend the law relating to coroners, to investigation of deaths and to certification and registration of deaths; to amend the criminal law; to make provision about criminal justice and about dealing with offenders; to make provision about the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses; to...

www.legislation.gov.uk

(4)In subsection (3) “indecent photograph” and “indecent pseudo-photograph” are to be construed—​

​

(a)in relation to England and Wales, in accordance with the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37), and​

​

(b)in relation to Northern Ireland, in accordance with the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17)).​

​

(5)“Child”, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.​

​

(6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—​

​

(a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or​

​

(b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.​

​

(7)References to an image of a person include references to an image of an imaginary person.​

​

(8)References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child.​

 

[acbytesla]

You have used it and not defined it

You just pointed to specific examples of things I view as depraved. I gave you examples of sexual acts and whether you consider those acts are depraved. Because those acts are frequently shown in pornography. In fact it is the depiction of these acts that make it pornography. So it is more than fair to ask you what is specifically "depraved" about pornography.

:It means without morality.

I know what the dictionary definition is. But certainly we can agree that morality varies from culture to culture and individual to individual. Unless of course you want to argue there is objective morality.

Darat describes porn that intentionally portrays actors looking underage as abhorrent. I am going further and calling it depraved.

I know he does and you do. But as the Dude says, "that is like, just your opinion man."

 

[acbytesla]

Nope - not true, people are prosecuted. Again you not understanding the regulatory system in the UK and not understanding the current legislation is hampering your ability to argue any meaningful points.

I will try again:

It starts with the Protection of Children Act 1978, this originally criminalised the production or possession of indecent images of children under the age of 16, later amendments widened this by introduction of the term "pseudo-photographs which is defined as images that appear to show children even if no child was actually involved in the production. The definition of "child" was then amended in the Sexual Offences (2003) act to raise it to apply to under 18s. That means if the pornography depicts someone as being under 18 - even if the participant is older - it falls under the law. Then in 2009 via the Coroners and Justice Act it further criminalised possession or production of cartoon or computer-generated sexual images of minors i.e. those under or appear to be under 18. (This was to provide clearer guidance for new media.) What this means is even if an adult performer i.e. someone over 18 is made to appear to be under 18 and the material is pornographic it can be treated as indecent images of children.

For the cites supporting the above:

Protection of Children Act 1978 - annotated with the various amendments: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/section/1

[F1Subject to sections 1A and 1B,] it is an offence for a person—​

​

(a)to take, or permit to be taken [F2or to make], any indecent photograph [F2or pseudo-photograph] of a child F3. . .; or​

​

(b)to distribute or show such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs]; or​

​

(c)to have in his possession such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs], with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or​

​

(d)to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs], or intends to do so.​

​

(2)For purposes of this Act, a person is to be regarded as distributing an indecent photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] if he parts with possession of it to, or exposes or offers it for acquisition by, another person.​

Sexual Offences 2003 Act

Sexual Offences Act 2003

An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

45​

(1)The Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (which makes provision about indecent photographs of persons under 16) is amended as follows.​

​

(2)In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) (meaning of “child”), for “16” substitute “ 18 ”.​

Coroners and Justice Act 2009​

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

An Act to amend the law relating to coroners, to investigation of deaths and to certification and registration of deaths; to amend the criminal law; to make provision about criminal justice and about dealing with offenders; to make provision about the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses; to...

www.legislation.gov.uk

(4)In subsection (3) “indecent photograph” and “indecent pseudo-photograph” are to be construed—​

​

(a)in relation to England and Wales, in accordance with the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37), and​

​

(b)in relation to Northern Ireland, in accordance with the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17)).​

​

(5)“Child”, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.​

​

(6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—​

​

(a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or​

​

(b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.​

​

(7)References to an image of a person include references to an image of an imaginary person.​

​

(8)References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child.​

So "barely legal" is legal.

 

[Darat]

While everything you say is true, the tag "barely legal" is also clearly meant to imply that they don't look it.

It's interesting to note that Poem keeps pointing to this "barely legal" category as if it would be made illegal if online porn available in the UK had to follow the same regulations as physical medium does. Yet as I showed " barley legal" as a category is available as physical DVDs that have been certified by the BBFC. And the reason being is "barely legal" means legal. It is beyond a red herring.

 

[Darat]

So "barely legal" is legal.

Yes. It's amusing to me that it is nothing more than a marketing term for both pornographers and anti-pornography campaigners.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes. It's amusing to me that it is nothing more than a marketing term for both pornographers and anti-pornography campaigners.

Absolutely. It is marketing for sure. Youth is definitely being sold. A perfect example of ageism. But what it is not being sold is kiddie or underage porn..

What would trouble me if the titles suggested that it was under age porn. People in the US go to prison for having underage porn on their computers.

 

[arthwollipot]

The fringe resets are coming with dizzying speed. It's almost like @Poem has spent 4,295 posts learning absolutely nothing.

 

[acbytesla]

The fringe resets are coming with dizzying speed. It's almost like @Poem has spent 4,295 posts learning absolutely nothing.

He's not interested in learning Art. He's on a crusade against something that runs counter to his personal sense of morality. Or as he has said multiple times, "depravity." Not that he has been willing to say what sexual acts are depraved or where he gets his morality.

This is not about protecting anyone. It never has been. If it was, he would demonstrate the harm of viewing porn. I would like to know what happens to 13 year olds if they discover it? Does it devastate their lives? And if he believes that, how exactly does it do that?

I might be willing to join his crusade if he could show this. But I am very confident that he can't.

 

[Poem]

edit

 

[Poem]

Nope - not true, people are prosecuted. Again you not understanding the regulatory system in the UK and not understanding the current legislation is hampering your ability to argue any meaningful points.

I will try again:

It starts with the Protection of Children Act 1978, this originally criminalised the production or possession of indecent images of children under the age of 16, later amendments widened this by introduction of the term "pseudo-photographs which is defined as images that appear to show children even if no child was actually involved in the production. The definition of "child" was then amended in the Sexual Offences (2003) act to raise it to apply to under 18s. That means if the pornography depicts someone as being under 18 - even if the participant is older - it falls under the law. Then in 2009 via the Coroners and Justice Act it further criminalised possession or production of cartoon or computer-generated sexual images of minors i.e. those under or appear to be under 18. (This was to provide clearer guidance for new media.) What this means is even if an adult performer i.e. someone over 18 is made to appear to be under 18 and the material is pornographic it can be treated as indecent images of children.

For the cites supporting the above:

Protection of Children Act 1978 - annotated with the various amendments: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/section/1

[F1Subject to sections 1A and 1B,] it is an offence for a person—​

​

(a)to take, or permit to be taken [F2or to make], any indecent photograph [F2or pseudo-photograph] of a child F3. . .; or​

​

(b)to distribute or show such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs]; or​

​

(c)to have in his possession such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs], with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or​

​

(d)to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs [F4or pseudo-photographs], or intends to do so.​

​

(2)For purposes of this Act, a person is to be regarded as distributing an indecent photograph [F5or pseudo-photograph] if he parts with possession of it to, or exposes or offers it for acquisition by, another person.​

Sexual Offences 2003 Act

Sexual Offences Act 2003

An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

45​

(1)The Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (which makes provision about indecent photographs of persons under 16) is amended as follows.​

​

(2)In section 2(3) (evidence) and section 7(6) (meaning of “child”), for “16” substitute “ 18 ”.​

Coroners and Justice Act 2009​

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

An Act to amend the law relating to coroners, to investigation of deaths and to certification and registration of deaths; to amend the criminal law; to make provision about criminal justice and about dealing with offenders; to make provision about the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses; to...

www.legislation.gov.uk

(4)In subsection (3) “indecent photograph” and “indecent pseudo-photograph” are to be construed—​

​

(a)in relation to England and Wales, in accordance with the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37), and​

​

(b)in relation to Northern Ireland, in accordance with the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17)).​

​

(5)“Child”, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.​

​

(6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—​

​

(a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or​

​

(b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.​

​

(7)References to an image of a person include references to an image of an imaginary person.​

​

(8)References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child.​

Thanks - good post.

I am getting mixed results whilst testing your argument. If I google your:

The definition of "child" was then amended in the Sexual Offences (2003) act to raise it to apply to under 18s. That means if the pornography depicts someone as being under 18 - even if the participant is older - it falls under the law.

AI states:

The definition of a "child" for offences relating to indecent images was indeed raised to apply to anyone under the age of 18 in the UK. This change was implemented via the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which amended the existing Protection of Children Act 1978 (PCA 1978) and the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
However, the second part of your statement contains a common misconception regarding the actual age of the person depicted. For an image to fall under the indecent photographs of a child legislation:

The person in the image must be factually under 18 years old at the time the image was made. The actual age is a matter of fact for a jury to determine, and expert evidence is not admissible to prove a person's age based purely on appearance (as established in the case of R v Land).

I'll concede that, despite this, your assessment might still be accurate (we should be wary of AI for sure). Even if you are right, there still remains the issue of porn that would fall foul of the BBFC but is available, in the UK, on the net. Gabby Bertin and the porn taskforce will be aware of these laws and the apparent confusion they cause but they are still calling for additional legislation.

 

[Poem]

No, it doesn't. It implies the actors are legal. Barely. It implies the actors aren't 45. That they are 18, 19, 20. Maybe even as old as 25. But like a lot of advertising, it is about baiting the consumer. You're arguing that people "infer" that they don't look it.

Let's be brutally honest, it's about someone orgasming over what looks like a child. It's about individualism and sexual liberation over and above the welfare of children. It's all part of the porn/sex revolution.

 

[acbytesla]

Let's be brutally honest, it's about someone orgasming over what looks like a child. It's about individualism and sexual liberation over and above the welfare of children. It's all part of the porn/sex revolution.

No, it's not. How dishonest can you be? No one 18 and 19 years of age is a child.