• 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?

Darat said:
No you are wrong, Lithrael very succinctly summarised the various UK laws in regard to pornography.
Click to expand...
The obvious concern is the milder stuff leads on to the more extreme. Since no children are involved then that must be your concern and why you used 'abhorrent'.

It is but a small step to then acknowledge the general trend of escalation that occurs as consumers become more and more desensitised.
 
Poem said:
The obvious concern is the milder stuff leads on to the more extreme. Since no children are involved then that must be your concern and why you used 'abhorrent'.

It is but a small step to then acknowledge the general trend of escalation that occurs as consumers become more and more desensitised.
Click to expand...
I think I know why I used the word abhorrent.

As for your assertion: any evidence?
 
Darat said:
I think I know why I used the word abhorrent.

As for your assertion: any evidence?
Click to expand...
Your reasons for using that particular adjective seem confused; as I said - you conflated the rape of a three year old with porn that has legal actors presenting as underage:
Darat said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why is the content we are discussing (legal age but imitating underage) - why is that abhorrent. Zero children are involved in that type of porn. What specifically is the concern?
 
Last edited:
Fake guns aren't, in themselves, dangerous, yet in the US it is illegal to ship or sell toy guns that can be too easily mistaken for real guns. The freedom of allowing realistic toy guns doesn't stack up to the problems caused by de facto forcing anyone encountering a fake gun to be unable to tell what they're dealing with on sight, even if it becomes obvious with an up close investigation.

You could phrase it as, it's illegal to ship or sell a toy gun where the predominant impression conveyed is that the gun is a real gun despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics of the gun are not those of a real gun.

But add a safety orange tip, or make it out of clear plastic or otherwise clearly distinguishable from a real gun and you are golden.

Simulated CSAM is illegal largely because it is indistinguishable or difficult to distinguish from real CSAM and so it causes all the same problems as real CSAM except the original abuse, from forcing law enforcement to spend time investigating it to the negative effects on the people that have to look at it during an investigation, etc etc. And when they go to prosecute someone for a CSAM posession case they very understandably want to include any fake CSAM as part of the offending collection.

Simulated CSAM is genuinely a completely different thing from obvious, documented adults roleplaying, which may be unliscensable in your jurisdiction, but will not, by itself, put you in prison.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Such material is by definition not CSAM. I mean it's right there - the first letter in the acronym represents the word "Child".
Click to expand...
What are pseudo-photos in relation to UK laws? (Lawtons Solicitors)
In the UK, pseudo-photographs or prohibited images refer to images that simulate sexual activity, either involving children or individuals who appear to be children, regardless of whether real children were involved in their creation. These images are considered illegal under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
 
Last edited:
Australian Institute of Criminology
It is not necessary to prove that a child depicted was in fact less than 16 years of age at the time the image was created. It is enough that they appear to be under that age. The legislation therefore applies to images of a person over the age of 16 who is made to appear younger than that. Standard medical indicators of the physical developmental stages of children may be used to assess whether an image depicts a child under the age of 16 (Censorship Review Board 2000).
 
arthwollipot said:
Neither, obviously, are you. I at least have watched some "barely legal" porn (for the intended purpose rather than to pick at things to complain about). At no point did I believe that I was watching anyone who was not 18+.
Click to expand...
 
Poem said:
Australian Institute of Criminology
It is not necessary to prove that a child depicted was in fact less than 16 years of age at the time the image was created. It is enough that they appear to be under that age. The legislation therefore applies to images of a person over the age of 16 who is made to appear younger than that. Standard medical indicators of the physical developmental stages of children may be used to assess whether an image depicts a child under the age of 16 (Censorship Review Board 2000).
Click to expand...
I'm an idiot ignore me not had my morning cup of The TEA.
 
Posted before:

Posted previously from The Guardian (June 2025):
When the Conservative peer Gabby Bertin arrived for a meeting with the the science and technology secretary, Peter Kyle, earlier this year she startled him by laying out an array of pornographic images across his desk. “They were screengrabs showing little girls, their hair in bunches, and massive, grown men grabbing little girls’ throats,” she says. She had selected images which appeared to depict child abuse, and yet were easily and legally available on a popular website.
Now let's see what industry insiders say about this type of content - here's porn producer Will Ryder talking about barely legal (CONTENT WARNING: This series features content that viewers may find disturbing, including images and themes of simulated s*xual abuse, inc*st, and s*xual assault. N*dity has been blurred. Viewer discretion is strongly advised):
Beyond Fantasy: Barely Legal
Ryder: "Somehow along the way....it got to a point where people wanted to see barely legal style girls. Hustler is one of the biggest series in history - barely legal - and these girls are all 18 - they are all 18 - but they look younger...pigtails, sometimes lollipops...they are cute, they are beautiful...
Same place - porn actress Tracey Sweet:
Beyond Fantasy: Barely Legal
Sweet:
"The young girl fantasy is one that's played out a lot, there is a huge market for it. And we're going to do what the market wants."
Nolan: "Be honest, how young are you made to look?"
Sweet: "As young as possible...as young as I can possibly look...and I can look pretty freaking young".
Same place - Donny - former porn producer:
Beyond Fantasy: Barely Legal
Donny: "I had one that came in and she probably looked 14. So I knew - we were going to be able to make a lot of money from this girl."
Click to expand...
 
Darat said:
What borderline porn? Is this your new term for "barely legal" what you are asking is "how many people will admit they watch legal porn"
Click to expand...
If you would care to answer #5,063, then we might know what it is you find problematic - and then we could discuss the inevitable fact that there will be a continuum of examples from legal to clearly illegal which has the effect of blurring red lines.

Is your concern that watching material that appears to suggest underage actors will lead to further escalation - that the consumer will develop a taste for the real thing (either the desire to watch child porn or actual sex with a minor)?
 
Darat said:
What borderline porn? Is this your new term for "barely legal" what you are asking is "how many people will admit they watch legal porn"
Click to expand...
Is Gabby Bertin talking nonsense?

The Guardian (June 2025):
When the Conservative peer Gabby Bertin arrived for a meeting with the the science and technology secretary, Peter Kyle, earlier this year she startled him by laying out an array of pornographic images across his desk. “They were screengrabs showing little girls, their hair in bunches, and massive, grown men grabbing little girls’ throats,” she says. She had selected images which appeared to depict child abuse, and yet were easily and legally available on a popular website.
 
Last edited:
www.cityam.com

4Chan ridicules Ofcom after UK regulator issues £500K fine

Ofcom has fined US-based forum 4Chan £520,000 for breaching the UK’s Online Safety Act, due to a lack of age verifications
www.cityam.com www.cityam.com
US-based forum 4Chan has ridiculed Ofcom after the UK regulator hit them with a £520,000 fine for breaching the UK’s Online Safety Act, in a case that underlines the growing challenge of enforcing digital rules on overseas platforms as well as the increasingly combative response from parts of the tech ecosystem.

4Chan has not paid previous fines issued by the regulator and has indicated it does not intend to comply.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
www.cityam.com

4Chan ridicules Ofcom after UK regulator issues £500K fine

Ofcom has fined US-based forum 4Chan £520,000 for breaching the UK’s Online Safety Act, due to a lack of age verifications
www.cityam.com www.cityam.com
US-based forum 4Chan has ridiculed Ofcom after the UK regulator hit them with a £520,000 fine for breaching the UK’s Online Safety Act, in a case that underlines the growing challenge of enforcing digital rules on overseas platforms as well as the increasingly combative response from parts of the tech ecosystem.

4Chan has not paid previous fines issued by the regulator and has indicated it does not intend to comply.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because the UK Office of Communciations does not in fact have extraterritorial enforcement powers.
 
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