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

[Lithrael]

It's one of the points we keep circling back around to. I think someone explained it before as something like:

'Barely' isn't a synonym of 'almost.' If you ALMOST made the bus, you missed the bus. If you BARELY made the bus, you're ON the bus.

Barely legal = legal.
Almost legal = illegal.

 

[Poem]

It's one of the points we keep circling back around to. I think someone explained it before as something like:

'Barely' isn't a synonym of 'almost.' If you ALMOST made the bus, you missed the bus. If you BARELY made the bus, you're ON the bus.

Barely legal = legal.
Almost legal = illegal.

This is the case in the US. As long as the actors are 18+, role playing is legal (unless there is an indistinguishable likeness to a real, identifiable child). Ashcroft v. FSC made this happen.

That is not the case in Western Europe, the UK and Australia. Material that is, or appears to be underage, is illegal. Australia is structurally stricter.

 

[Poem]

Barely legal. It's the literal meaning of the phrase - only just legal, nearly illegal but not illegal. What part of that is unclear to you?

Like I said, the term barely legal was coined in the US. Material that is legal in the US is illegal in many other countries. Barely legal material legally made in the US will probably be illegal in those other countries I outlined.

 

[arthwollipot]

Like I said, the term barely legal was coined in the US. Material that is legal in the US is illegal in many other countries. Barely legal material legally made in the US will probably be illegal in those other countries I outlined.

"Probably"? Are we just speculating now?

 

[Poem]

"Probably"? Are we just speculating now?

There will always be some grey areas as with any cut off point. Much of the material on the video which you won't watch is obviously aiming at looking underage.

 

[Lithrael]

Much of the material on the video which you won't watch is obviously aiming at looking underage.

And if that material is not available on mainstream sites then it doesn't support your contention that mainstream sites are rife with videos that simulate underage sex. The only proof you've brought so far is that mainstream sites are rife with searchable keywords that could imply underage sex, and iirc that research did not look at the content of any videos.

 

[Poem]

And if that material is not available on mainstream sites then it doesn't support your contention that mainstream sites are rife with videos that simulate underage sex.

It's legally made in the US (and elsewhere) - so why wouldn't they upload it and make money?

The only proof you've brought so far is that mainstream sites are rife with searchable keywords that could imply underage sex, and iirc that research did not look at the content of any videos.

See above.
As said before - I'm not going to plough through content to check it's dodgy and end up arrested.

 

[arthwollipot]

And if that material is not available on mainstream sites then it doesn't support your contention that mainstream sites are rife with videos that simulate underage sex. The only proof you've brought so far is that mainstream sites are rife with searchable keywords that could imply underage sex, and iirc that research did not look at the content of any videos.

Again, that source defines having particular searchable keywords as "violence".

 

[Poem]

Again, that source defines having particular searchable keywords as "violence".

Why don't you explain to the thread why creators of porn in the US (material that is legal in the US of the sort that we have been discussing - the simulation of children), would not upload their content to mainstream websites and make money from it? You have made a big deal about how barely legal is legal, so what could possibly weigh on the minds of these people such that they would not?

This exchange:

No, this is a crystal clear example of rape culture - countries outlawing CSAM...but it's nevertheless awash on mainstream sites.

That's a lie, and the fact that it's a lie has been patiently explained to you many, many times. The actors are not being portrayed as underage. They are explicitly and obviously being portrayed as being 18 or older. A person who is 18 or older can wear short skirts and pigtails and that does not mean that they are portraying a child.

needs addressing. No one is going to take anyone seriously who refuses to look at all the evidence. I'll ask again, would you have joined in with the mockery directed towards Wilberforce because he was a Christian? Was his evidence against slavery tainted by his Christianity?

 

[arthwollipot]

I'll ask again, would you have joined in with the mockery directed towards Wilberforce because he was a Christian? Was his evidence against slavery tainted by his Christianity?

You can ask as many times as you like, but I'm not going to answer because it's utterly irrelevant.

CSAM is not "awash" on mainstream sites. CSAM is illegal and prosecuted almost everywhere you care about. But you're not talking about CSAM. You're just talking about regular ol' everyday run-of-the-mill pornography.

 

[theprestige]

People everywhere: The full flower of youth is attractive.

Poem: So you want to ◊◊◊◊ prepubescent children?

 

[Poem]

You can ask as many times as you like, but I'm not going to answer because it's utterly irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant?

CSAM is not "awash" on mainstream sites. CSAM is illegal and prosecuted almost everywhere you care about. But you're not talking about CSAM. You're just talking about regular ol' everyday run-of-the-mill pornography.

Like I said, content deemed CSAM in countries like the UK, Western Europe and Australia is being uploaded from countries like the USA; where have you, or anyone else, dealt with that?

That you ignored what I wrote is noted.

 

[Poem]

People everywhere: The full flower of youth is attractive.

Poem: So you want to ◊◊◊◊ prepubescent children?

Not one of your best posts. My use of 'prepubescent' regarding the current discussion is where?

 

[catsmate]

You still haven't shown that sporting pigtails or braces actually means they're flaunting the law. The only source claiming that is Collective Shout, (in)famous for claiming BS, and no actual lawmaker or really anyone else agreed enough to even try to cover the case. So, no, it's not something established as breaking the law. And that would be necessary before you claim that the USA is deliberately producing that, much less being some kind of pariah for it.

The UK still produces a lot of "schoolgirl" themed CP videography. I know a few of those involved.

 

[catsmate]

All this porn might lead to something truly salacious. Like dancing ...

Or people enjoying sex. That can't be right......

 

[Poem]

The UK still produces a lot of "schoolgirl" themed CP videography. I know a few of those involved.

You mean cosplay don't you?

 

[Poem]

Regarding countries that do not blanket ban porn, the USA is unique in it's stance on child roleplay content (with the exception, perhaps, of Japan, Germany, Mexico and Columbia where there is some degree of freedom).

The USA is clearly out on a limb here and should be held to account. It is no surprise that they did not ratify the UNCRC - the only UN country not to do so.

From an international perspective, the USA is an abhorrent pariah state.

 

[Darat]

The UK still produces a lot of "schoolgirl" themed CP videography. I know a few of those involved.

And those are legal in the UK and on DVD (I think it was Lithrael that posted about it). The issue Poem is having is - for example - automatically thinking that being in a "school uniform" means it is meant to be kids, the UK's official censor the BBFC doesn't agree with them.

ETA:

This is actually the first thread I've participated in with such a clear reset on a part of the topic that I personally looked up and posted receipts, and stayed long enough to see the argument come back around as though that never happened. I feel like I should get a badge or something.

But yeah they don't put you in prison for producing a porn film where, for example, they say in the dialog that an older performer is underage. They tell the producer they have to cut the line where the guy says "I still can't get over it. You look like you're 35. It's crazy that you're actually a legal minor." And if the producer doesn't get it cut and resubmitted, the film doesn't get its rating label and can't be legally published.

It's just that abhorrent.

The quoted laws about pseudo-images were also hashed out and IIRC several posters agreed that Poem has a different idea about what "the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or 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" means than the people enforcing the laws do. The obvious intention of the law is 'don't make indecent images that you can honestly mistake for CSAM, and don't try to dance around the edges of the letter of the law with 'but officer, children don't have (xyz), either.'

It's clear from legally published, legally rated porn films on DVD in the UK that sixth form school costumes and talk of naughty students and teachers do not, legally speaking, create the predominant impression that the persons shown are children.
The law that can get you put away is about FAKE CSAM. It is not about people dressing up a bit for studio porn.

The laws for obtaining legal ratings for distribution of porn DVDs in the UK are more strict, not allowing porn with settings or dialog that say or too overtly imply a character is underage. The penalty for just that is... nothing. You can't legally publish and distribute it, is all.

What porn sites were apparantly 'rife with' was "pornographic content which suggests sexual activity with children;" if they meant fake CSAM, that's actionable, go for it, but if they meant 'Sally's Saucy School for Very Naughty Students' then no, I'm not actually very concerned about people being able to click to say "I'm 18+" to see it.

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.'

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.

Were you ever able to acknowledge that it's clear from legally published, legally rated by the BBFC, porn films on DVD in the UK, that sixth form school costumes and talk of naughty students and teachers do not, legally speaking, 'create the predominant impression that the persons shown are children,' which is the letter of the law in the UK?

 

[Poem]

And those are legal in the UK and on DVD (I think it was Lithrael that posted about it). The issue Poem is having is - for example - automatically thinking that being in a "school uniform" means it is meant to be kids, the UK's official censor the BBFC doesn't agree with them.

ETA:

I have already repeatedly stated that there will be a continuum (from just okay to absolutely not okay) of content available online.

Do you dispute that material of the sort depicted in that porn documentary (Beyond Fantasy: Barely Legal) is uploaded to mainstream websites from producers in the USA?

 

[catsmate]

And those are legal in the UK and on DVD (I think it was Lithrael that posted about it). The issue Poem is having is - for example - automatically thinking that being in a "school uniform" means it is meant to be kids, the UK's official censor the BBFC doesn't agree with them.

ETA:

I must drop PandoraB an invite to join us ......