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

[Lithrael]

The guy used to be a porn producer who made simulated CSAM on purpose and now he's a pastor? Oof. I get the appeal of a good 'sinner repents' story but. Good grief.

 

[Poem]

The guy used to be a porn producer who made simulated CSAM on purpose and now he's a pastor? Oof. I get the appeal of a good 'sinner repents' story but. Good grief.

The point was about the bias of a pastor commentating on whether those kind of videos do indeed give the impression of what it looks like to have sex with a child. We might expect a similar bias if we ask a porn user for their opinion.

Do the girls look underage?

 

[Poem]

You're welcome! I was thinking maybe I should watch the thing, since Poem seems to rely on it for a lot of their underlying arguments.

And if it had looked like an actual documentary, I probably would have watched it right then and there, just to be fair to Poem. But now that I know that it was created to further a specific agenda, and I already know what that agenda is, the urgency is gone for me.

I already think that there's a lot of exploitation in porn, and that the regulatory regime needs diligent and constant attention and reform.

However.

"Everyone here is an adult, and we're saying everyone here is an adult, but if you want to pretend they're slightly younger we won't do anything to break your immersion"

Seems like the least of porn's problems, the least of things that needs to be better regulated.

There's actual illegal child trafficking and child exploitation going on out there. There's underground pornography rings that really do trade in actual CSAM.

It's like the "step-relative" genre of porn. You know that a lot of viewers are pretending it's the "non-step" version of the same scene. And you do have people banning it, or trying to get it banned. But they're specific and concrete about it.

Poem is pretty specific and concrete about the problem. Or rather, chapter one of the 'documentary' he relies on seems to be pretty specific and concrete about the problem. But he stops short of being specific and concrete about his preferred solution. Beyond "calling out" jurisdictions for being too lenient, he has nothing to offer.

Anyone watching the type of content being discussed is fuelling it. Pointing out pariah states like the US and drawing attention to countries like the UK and Australia where it is illegal underlines how abhorrent the material is.

Doing this, pointing it out, might alter some people's behaviour.

 

[Lithrael]

Do the girls look underage?

Since I have never disputed the existence of simulated CSAM, I don't feel I need to check on this particular example.

I would be more interested in being able to look up the titles/etc of the porn films being referenced so I can get an idea of how rife the internet is with them (or whether they are actually available at all).

 

[Poem]

Since I have never disputed the existence of simulated CSAM, I don't feel I need to check on this particular example.

I would be more interested in being able to look up the titles/etc of the porn films being referenced so I can get an idea of how rife the internet is with them (or whether they are actually available at all).

You pointed to a specific example of a film the BBFC did grant a certificate to so you must also recognise the converse and their comments about such - see #5,7189.

 

[Poem]

Since I have never disputed the existence of simulated CSAM, I don't feel I need to check on this particular example.

Content which the USA has legalised - which is banned in the UK, Western Europe and Canada? That is correct is it not?

 

[Lithrael]

I have NO idea what you're saying you'd like me to address that I have not already flogged to death in this thread.

The BBFC has happily rated school uniform porn, therefore 'school uniform' does not by itself mean 'gives the predominant impression of being underage' or whatever it is.

What I am still doubting is whether porn that genuinely skirts simulated CSAM criteria (prosecutable, not just unlicensable) is rife on mainstream sites to the point that, for example, pornhub users end up watching it there by mistake or from algorithms.

If I trust you that the girls in the propagandocumentary look disturbingly young, I still need to know whether the film they're in is actually available to use it to say anything about how permissive anyone is being about such films.

 

[Poem]

What I am still doubting is whether porn that genuinely skirts simulated CSAM criteria (prosecutable, not just unlicensable) is rife on mainstream sites to the point that, for example, pornhub users end up watching it there by mistake or from algorithms.

What about the following statements from the BBFC are in any way unclear?

The Guardian (June 2025):
Officials at the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) guided her through short clips of extreme material to help her understand the nature of easily available harmful content. She remains disturbed by the material she saw – content designed to appear to be child sexual abuse, set in children’s bedrooms – roles played by young girls, who may be over 18 but are acting as children. “The titles are very problematic, things like: ‘Daddy’s going to come home and give his daughter a good seeing to’ or ‘Oops I’ve gone too far and now she’s dead’ or ‘Kidnap and kill a hooker.’” This content would be prohibited by the BBFC in the offline world, but is unregulated online.

The Guardian, June 2025:
However, other forms of harmful pornography that are regulated offline are not subject to similar restrictions online. Research conducted by the BBFC found that one in three adult users had been exposed to violent or abusive content online in the past three months, seeing material depicting physical violence, nonconsensual activity and adults role-playing as children.

 

[Lithrael]

Content which the USA has legalised - which is banned in the UK, Western Europe and Canada? That is correct is it not?

Ugh for the fiftieth time no, simulated CSAM of the type everyone but you is discussing is illegal in the USA too. Things that you think are simulated CSAM but are in fact just adults cosplaying a bit without trying to convince anyone they're really 15, are legal in the USA and elsewhere. Maybe not Australia; I have not yet checked which countries have banned porn where they dress like they shop at Claire's on the basis that anyone who's got a prominent forehead gives the impression that they are underage.

You've drawn the line in the wrong place. The real line used by law enforcement is there and the real line used by legal content monitors and fine-assigners is there. (Imagine I'm pointing to lines several meters away from Poem's)

You keep quoting the law and assuming your interpretation of the words is correct, when you've been shown clear examples of the ways the laws actually are applied in the real world, and they don't line up with yours.

 

[Poem]

Ugh for the fiftieth time no, simulated CSAM of the type everyone but you is discussing is illegal in the USA too. Things that you think are simulated CSAM but are in fact just adults cosplaying a bit without trying to convince anyone they're really 15, are legal in the USA and elsewhere. Maybe not Australia; I have not yet checked which countries have banned porn where they dress like they shop at Claire's on the basis that anyone who's got a prominent forehead gives the impression that they are underage.

You've drawn the line in the wrong place. The real line used by law enforcement is there and the real line used by legal content monitors and fine-assigners is there. (Imagine I'm pointing to lines several meters away from Poem's)

You keep quoting the law and assuming your interpretation of the words is correct, when you've been shown clear examples of the ways the laws actually are applied in the real world, and they don't line up with yours.

You are not addressing what I have just asked you. Please do so.

 

[Lithrael]

I'll answer if you ask me an actual question, as opposed to showing me a quote and saying 'address this.'

 

[Poem]

Ugh for the fiftieth time no, simulated CSAM of the type everyone but you is discussing is illegal in the USA too. Things that you think are simulated CSAM but are in fact just adults cosplaying a bit without trying to convince anyone they're really 15, are legal in the USA and elsewhere. Maybe not Australia; I have not yet checked which countries have banned porn where they dress like they shop at Claire's on the basis that anyone who's got a prominent forehead gives the impression that they are underage.

You are clearly confused. Material that is legal in the USA is illegal in the UK. Creating porn with 18+ actors that looks like underage porn is legal in the US. It is not legal in the UK and the other countries I mentioned.

 

[sackett]

@Poem: I think I've identified the root of your problem. You are hostile to porn in general
because you only consume* the poorest stuff. I mean, Max Hardcore for Pete's sake! You
sad, deprived soul.

But there's hope, because there's help.

Take the time to search for porn sites that are good for YOU! Learn, don't spurn.
Begin with the simple approach. Just enter "help finding good porn" in your search window
-- and be amazed, gratified, even moved by the abundance that rewards you. Then begin visiting, sampling,
and refining. You may use the Back button a lot at first. Good. It's your friend, and it never judges you.

Among other things, you may learn about yourself on this journey through the Forest of Keywords.

* Yes, you're consuming porn, you have been all along. There are many kinks in human nature.
If revulsion is one of yours, it's nothing to be ashamed of! I'm not ashamed of you, so there.

 

[Poem]

@sackett - a barely tolerated lampooneer.

 

[theprestige]

Every 'documentary' will have some bias and every human will too.

Which is why I value much more highly those documentarians who make an effort to be as neutral as possible, and take steps to mitigate their bias in the work.

As an example of clear bias:
I remember when we were shooting one of those scenes...I was like...we are giving people the image of having sex with a child. (Hansel Orzame (former producer) from Beyond Fantasy)

Turns out that Hansel Orzame is now a pastor - but it is clear from the film that the actors do look underage.

Do look underage to Hansel Orzame

 

[Poem]

Do look underage to Hansel Orzame

You didn't watch the film.

 

[theprestige]

What about the following statements from the BBFC are in any way unclear?

The Guardian (June 2025):
Officials at the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) guided her through short clips of extreme material to help her understand the nature of easily available harmful content. She remains disturbed by the material she saw – content designed to appear to be child sexual abuse, set in children’s bedrooms – roles played by young girls, who may be over 18 but are acting as children. “The titles are very problematic, things like: ‘Daddy’s going to come home and give his daughter a good seeing to’ or ‘Oops I’ve gone too far and now she’s dead’ or ‘Kidnap and kill a hooker.’” This content would be prohibited by the BBFC in the offline world, but is unregulated online.

The Guardian, June 2025:
However, other forms of harmful pornography that are regulated offline are not subject to similar restrictions online. Research conducted by the BBFC found that one in three adult users had been exposed to violent or abusive content online in the past three months, seeing material depicting physical violence, nonconsensual activity and adults role-playing as children.

There are no statements from the BBFC in these passages.

There's paraphrases and interpretations by the Guardian, of second and third hand narratives the origins of which are attributed to the BBFC.

 

[theprestige]

Misclick.

 

[Poem]

There are no statements from the BBFC in these passages.

There's paraphrases and interpretations by the Guardian, of second and third hand narratives the origins of which are attributed to the BBFC.

The BBFC regularly say nothing when the press misinterpret them? Where is the discrepancy? - the BBFC in their own words:

The research shows that, in the past three months, users had been exposed to online content depicting physical violence, non-consensual activity, incest, and adults role-playing as children. Such content may cause harm by promoting an interest in sexually abusive relationships or in activity (such as strangulation) that can lead to serious physical harm. As such, it would be refused classification by the BBFC and would therefore be illegal to supply or distribute offline (on DVD or Blu-Ray). Of those exposed to these types of content, users were most concerned (67%) by material depicting adults role-playing as children.

Of course, this has all come up before.
I think you are incensed that the USA has been proven to be morally bankrupt. You can't accept it.

 

[Lithrael]

You have not shown, to the best of my recollection, that the material that "would be refused classification by the BBFC and would therefore be illegal to supply or distribute offline (on DVD or Blu-Ray)" IS legal to supply or distribute on DVD or Blu-Ray in the US, and you have not shown that it is any more regulated online in the UK than it is in the US.

Heck, I'm the only one that's actually posted a demonstrable critera that's allowed on DVD in the US but not in the UK (deep throating to the point of choking).