• 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?

I will again point out that the 'slippery slope' stuff: fictionally portraying violence, incest, real or simulated choking, 'I can look pretty damn young' roleplay etc; can get distributors fined; it does not get anyone put in prison.

Simulated CSAM gets people put in prison. Because it is difficult to distinguish from real CSAM and so carries all of the same societal costs, with the single exception of the direct child abuse of filming real CSAM.

I will happily concede this point if Poem can show me anyone in the UK being sent up the river for things that are merely unlisencable, and easy to distinguish from CSAM.

As far as I'm aware, simulated CSAM is typically used as an enhancement, to count as part of an offender's CSAM collection or other inappropriate activities.

EDIT: I can find a couple of UK cases that sound like they were specifically for non photographic indecent images of children:

Andrew Smith, from Kendal, Cumbria, was found with 36 pictures, which included sketches and computer-generated images. It made the news because a few of them were Simpsons porn. He had requested a jury for his trial at Carlisle crown court because he wanted his campaign to be heard by others - his campaign in favor of legalizing incest and lowering the age of consent to 12. Which worked; now he's got a bunch of weird pull quotes out there from the trial. The jury took 40 minutes to unanimously deliver a guilty verdict: convicted on nine counts of possessing prohibited images. He went to jail again for violating court orders, and then in 2020 he was back in court on charges of making indecent images of children - a slightly counterintuitive charge, since actions like 'opening an email with an indecent image attachment' count as 'making' legally speaking.

More recently, in 2023, Graham Moon of Springwell, Sunderland, went to court after police executed a search warrant of his home address. They "seized electronic devices and over two devices were 49 images that were accessible." "An example of one image was computer generated of a male child, effectively a cartoon." Yep, it made the news because it was Simpsons porn, again. At South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court, Moon pleaded guilty to possession of 49 prohibited images of children. Prosecutor John Garside said: “There are no sentencing guidelines for this offence." After the court heard, among other points, that there was no real child involved, the judge recommended a 12-month community order, containing 20 days of rehabilitative work with the Probation Service – and she did not place him on the sex offender register.

After a little more web searching, it sounds like this is what they were charged under:

Section 62 CJA 2009 – possession of prohibited images of children​

This offence is targeted at non-photographic images including Computer-Generated Images (CGIs), cartoons, manga images and drawings. It criminalises the possession of images of a child which are intimate or depict sexual activity, which are pornographic and also grossly offensive, disgusting or of an obscene character.

This seems to me to be a little overzealous in its scope, but given the way it was used in these cases aligns with my impression that such charges are intended to be used to penalize people who are otherwise up to weird ◊◊◊◊, where someone who is charged but otherwise found to be 'just some guy' gets community service.

bransonreese.jpg
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
Why have many Western European countries, the UK and Australia banned roleplay porn? You are adamant, it would seem, that it's not about slippery slopes - what then exactly?
Click to expand...
They believe, for whatever reason, that underage roleplay porn itself is a harm that exceeds the good. That's why most prohibitions are put into law: Because the thing itself is deemed undesirable.

Laws should not be passed to prohibit things that are desirable, out of some fear that they might create a slippery slope to undesirable things.

Poem said:
The material you are talking about we know exists - the example of Young Harlots (front cover) has been cited: it looks dodgy but the BBFC approved it with no roleplay cuts necessary. However, as has been quoted myriad times - the BBFC make it clear that there is material available that would not get a certicficate:
Click to expand...
Your Exhibit A for prohibited roleplay in the UK is a work that the BBFC did not cut for roleplay. Is that the best you can do? I don't know, but it's the best you've done so far.
 
catsmate said:
The UK still produces a lot of "schoolgirl" themed CP videography. I know a few of those involved.
Click to expand...
CP means colour photography? You know those involved in making such content, but not those involved in the none-CP stuff?

Define schoolgirl.
 
theprestige said:
They believe, for whatever reason, that underage roleplay porn itself is a harm that exceeds the good. That's why most prohibitions are put into law: Because the thing itself is deemed undesirable.
Click to expand...
I am asking you / art / anyone, why exactly such material is banned....nobody is underage remember.
theprestige said:
Laws should not be passed to prohibit things that are desirable, out of some fear that they might create a slippery slope to undesirable things.
Click to expand...
You remain in disagreement with mine and Darat's opinion - that the content is abhorrent.
theprestige said:
Your Exhibit A for prohibited roleplay in the UK is a work that the BBFC did not cut for roleplay. Is that the best you can do? I don't know, but it's the best you've done so far.
Click to expand...
No, you misunderstood what I said. Please go back and read.

(I am not ignoring your longer older posts btw).
 
theprestige said:
Penis-oriented vagina.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, one could argue that the overall impact from emissions, infrastructure requirements, and radical recontextualization of the social fabric, taken together, calls into question the per se legitimacy of penis-orientated vaginas.
 
Poem said:
On the other hand, one could argue that the overall impact from emissions, infrastructure requirements, and radical recontextualization of the social fabric, taken together, calls into question the per se legitimacy of penis-orientated vaginas.
Click to expand...
See? Makes perfect sense, s/orientated/oriented.

ETA: Look, I'm trying to help you out as much as I can. The moment you decide your position could be better improved by addressing everything else I said in that post, I'll be right here to help you with any of that. As long as you think your position is best advanced by getting hung up on this one thing, I'm happy to help you stay stuck on it.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
I am asking you / art / anyone, why exactly such material is banned....nobody is underage remember.
Click to expand...

Lithrael said:
I will again point out that the 'slippery slope' stuff: fictionally portraying violence, incest, real or simulated choking, 'I can look pretty damn young' roleplay etc; can get distributors fined; it does not get anyone put in prison.

Simulated CSAM gets people put in prison. Because it is difficult to distinguish from real CSAM and so carries all of the same societal costs, with the single exception of the direct child abuse of filming real CSAM.
Click to expand...
Such material is banned because simulation of actual CSAM is banned. Roleplay porn is not simulated CSAM.

Is this clear enough for you yet?
 
theprestige said:
I for one don't agree that the per se legitimacy of something can be questioned just because it might lead to a chain reaction that results in a negative outcome somewhere far down the line of alleged causality.

Operating an automobile can allow for drunk driving can lead to death of innocent bystanders. This does not call into question the per se legitimacy of driving a car. It might, however, call for strict(er) regulation of the activity.

In many cases, the per se legitimacy of something is related to its overall risk/reward to society. Risk from improper use of cars is less than the overall benefit to society of having such transportation options widely available to everyone. On the other hand, one could argue that the overall impact from emissions, infrastructure requirements, and radical recontextualization of the social fabric, taken together, calls into question the per se legitimacy of POVs.

In other cases, the per se legitimacy of something is axiomatic. The right to free speech, for example, is held by many (most? almost all?) to be axiomatically legitimate per se. No amount of bad speech or consequences of bad speech can call into question the per se legitimacy of the right to free speech.

Which brings us back to the question of strict scrutiny, when proposing to regulate things that are axiomatically legitimate, like pornographic expressions.
Click to expand...
This all comes down to the meaning, if any, we ascribe to sex - it's value and the ethical issues involved. Comparing it to transportation seems like a false analogy and a reductive one at that. It makes it seem like it's all about functionality - and porn has certainly achieved that. The message is - you are at A but you want to get to B - just log on and go. I have outlined the societal cost.

This is an example of where we are at:
Poem said:
You do not know if there is any material difference between scratching someone else's itch and having sex with them?
Click to expand...
acbytesla said:
Nope
Click to expand...
Is there a material difference tp?
 
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