• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Again and again, Poem complains about the term "barely legal." As if the title itself isn’t clear that the porn doesn’t say "barely illegal. The key word being "LEGAL."

Doh!
 
acbytesla said:
Again and again, Poem complains about the term "barely legal." As if the title itself isn’t clear that the porn doesn’t say "barely illegal. The key word being "LEGAL."

Doh!
Click to expand...
Haven't been using that term.
 
Darat said:
............
Click to expand...
Poem said:
I guess it all depends on how you define 'natural'.

You made a judgement here about the 'natural' habit of some:

(* material that Barnardo's described as rife on mainstream porn sites - often described as barely legal)
Click to expand...

I used a shorthand a while back. And? What phrase would you use? And why do you avoid explaining why the content in question is abhorrent?
 
acbytesla said:
Again and again, Poem complains about the term "barely legal." As if the title itself isn’t clear that the porn doesn’t say "barely illegal. The key word being "LEGAL."

Doh!
Click to expand...
He doesn't understand the definition of the word barely. Not understanding it is an adjective which means just enough. Maybe he's confused thinking it means almost? Perhaps?
 
acbytesla said:
He doesn't understand the definition of the word barely. Not understanding it is an adjective which means just enough. Maybe he's confused thinking it means almost? Perhaps?
Click to expand...
Let's forget the term 'barely legal'. Darat described content when quoting UK law. There will be a continuum from mild to extreme of such material. Watch one and the algorithm will offer more like it. It's a rabbit hole, no?

I know, I'll go online and watch every porn video that fits....and wait to be arrested. Report to follow.
 
It's actually very simple.

If it really is indistinguishable (or almost indistinguishable) from real, obvious CSAM then it is just as illegal as CSAM to produce, possess, distribute, or view.

If it's not then it's not.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
It's actually very simple.

If it really is indistinguishable (or almost indistinguishable) from real, obvious CSAM then it is just as illegal as CSAM to produce, possess, distribute, or view.

If it's not then it's not.
Click to expand...
If we are talking UK law then, no, that is not the case:
Darat said:
The current laws are clear you cannot produce nor view what in the Protection of Children act of 1978 (Amended) was termed "pseudo-photographs i.e. images that appear to show children even if no child was involved. This was further extended in the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 which raised the definition of children to be under 18 not under 16. This made pornography which depicts someone as being under 18 even if the performer is older illegal. So in the UK any pornography - and it does not matter if it is video, computer generated, hand animated etc. or how it is distributed - that makes it look like or implies that the performers are under 18 can be treated as indecent images of children which would mean that everyone involved, from the performers to the camera people to the editor to the publisher and the people who view it could be liable for up to 10 years of imprisonment, an unlimited fine and being placed on the sex offenders register.
Click to expand...
No mention of indistinguishable.
 
Last edited:
The facts on the ground show that my interpretation of the law is correct and that yours is not.
 
Lithrael said:
The facts on the ground show that my interpretation of the law is correct and that yours is not.
Click to expand...
Those who orgasm to what is clearly risky material (risky in the context of what we are discussing) have a vested interest in describing it as perfectly acceptable. Any attempt by a UK citizen to investigate the degree to which a particular video 'makes it look like or implies a performer is under 18' could result in a lengthy prison sentence.

I don't see that you have proven anything. Remember Tracey Sweet saying how popular young looking (I can look pretty freakin' young) porn was / is?
 
Last edited:
In the rush to legalise and consume porn not many took the time to consider the dire consequences.
 
Poem said:
Those who orgasm to what is clearly risky material (risky in the context of what we are discussing) have a vested interest in describing it as perfectly acceptable. Any attempt by a UK citizen to investigate the degree to which a particular video 'makes it look like or implies a performer is under 18' could result in a lengthy prison sentence.
Click to expand...
You do know that's an ad hominem attack, right? And not a reasoned argument with anybody's points. Anyway, I don't, so I don't have a vested interest (just a regular ol' pedantic interest) and yet here I am. And anyway (2) you are vastly overstating the riskiness of, for example, mainstream school uniform kink porn featuring performers in their twenties who are not actively trying to pretend they are 15.
Poem said:
I don't see that you have proven anything.
Click to expand...
That's correct, you don't.

Heck, I'm gonna start appending a link to post #5032 on all my posts in here so lurkers can check my argument. And here's the one citing an example of a legally rated and published "classroom" setting UK DVD.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
You do know that's an ad hominem attack, right?
Click to expand...
No: I said 'those'.
Lithrael said:
And not a reasoned argument with anybody's points. Anyway, I don't, so I don't have a vested interest (just a regular ol' pedantic interest) and yet here I am. And anyway (2) you are vastly overstating the riskiness of, for example, mainstream school uniform kink porn featuring performers in their twenties who are not actively trying to pretend they are 15.
Click to expand...
I mentioned a continuum of degrees didn't I? Some of that school stuff will no doubt have some performers that look freakin' young right? One might find oneself migrating to that end of the continuum no?

Like I said, anyone investigating might find themselves winding up in prison...or else turned on by what looks like a kid...

I can't quite believe we are having this conversation. Just admit the whole porn experiment has gone seriously wrong.
 
Poem said:
No: I said 'those'.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you don't know what an ad hom attack is either. Ad hom is the attempt to counter an argument by impugning the character of an arguer instead of addressing the points of an argument. You don't have to say 'you, Lith, do this and that's why you argue the point,' for it to be an ad hom attack. (You do have to say that to get a red card from the forum mods, though.)

It's an ad hom because it implies that the reason anyone would argue that what you describe as 'clearly risky material' isn't 'clearly risky material' is because they like to watch it, and not because what you describe as 'clearly risky material' is bloody not 'clearly risky material.'
Poem said:
Pointing out that there is a continuum from borderline to extreme content on the net, which is essentially what you are saying here (...)
Click to expand...
That is not what I am saying. I'm saying that (A) simulated CSAM and (B) adults in costumes roleplaying, for example, teacher/student situations (without anyone looking underage or trying to look underage), are two completely different things. I am further saying that (B) does not look like CSAM. You disagree with me, but the courts don't seem to.

My most recent post quoting the law and Barnardo's and the post citing an example of a legally rated and published "classroom" setting UK DVD. And the post with the front cover. Ooh and the post discussing actual documented cuts demanded by the BBFC to get films the rating they wanted. And the post where I say, again, that the BBFC's actions show they don't agree with Poem's interpretations.
 
Last edited:
Since we're still hung up on "barely legal" and schoolgirl costumes, I'll again point out that it's the high fashion industry, not the lowbrow "big boobs and butts" porn industry, that has made a habit of sexualizing very young women and often striving to depict them as under legal adult age even when they are not (and also when they actually are). I guarantee that if you ever see film or video of a young girl with AA size breasts and skinny thighs and waif-eyed makeup parading in a teddy carrying a baby doll and a lollipop and a pouty expression while a live audience of adult men stares at her from five feet away, it'll be part of a fashion show rather than a porno film.
 
Poem said:
I used a shorthand a while back. And? What phrase would you use? And why do you avoid explaining why the content in question is abhorrent?
Click to expand...
I really didn't think it was necessary to explain why CSAM "pornography" is abhorrent, do you really not know why an adult raping a 3 year old is wrong and abhorrent?
 
Darat said:
I really didn't think it was necessary to explain why CSAM "pornography" is abhorrent,
Click to expand...
The question is about CSAM that involves no children. Like I said, such material is legal in the USA and very popular on the net.
Darat said:
do you really not know why an adult raping a 3 year old is wrong and abhorrent?
Click to expand...
Three year olds aren't being discussed; no 18 year old and above looks like a 3 year old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom