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

[Lithrael]

Why is porn that portrays adult actors as children abhorrent?

I don't find that type particularly abhorrent, myself. What I do think is that roleplay porn that can be genuinely mistaken for CSAM is probably best to keep out of distribution because it makes the work of rooting out/prosecuting the real stuff, more difficult.

Kind of like how you're not supposed to paint the safety orange tip on a fake gun, black. It doesn't make the fake gun dangerous, but you don't want to needlessly create more situations where it's hard to tell whether someone's got a real gun or a fake one.

 

[Poem]

It doesn't encourage pedophilia. It does nothing that you say it does. It is harmless cosplay..

I'm with Darat - it's abhorrent:

The current situation is that the porn that was described in your quotation is illegal, it is prosecuted when cases can be made, people go to prison. I can't think how clearer as a society we can be that we find such porn not only wrong but abhorrent.

Watch that type of content in the UK (and elsewhere) and expect to be put away.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm with Darat - it's abhorrent:

We're clear. You find all porn abhorrent. This is not news.

Watch that type of content in the UK (and elsewhere) and expect to be put away.

No , not even there. The law in the UK does not prohibit adults dressing as children. And the law only makes it illegal for producers of porn. Not consumers. And even then, it is illegal, not criminal.

 

[Poem]

No , not even there. The law in the UK does not prohibit adults dressing as children. And the law only makes it illegal for producers of porn. Not consumers. And even then, it is illegal, not criminal.

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.

Why don't you explain to the thread why you want such porn to be available? You don't like being told 'no' do you?

 

[Poem]

Protection of Children Act 1978 - pseudo image

Protection of Children Act 1978

An Act to prevent the exploitation of children by making indecent photographs of them; and to penalise the distribution, showing and advertisement of such indecent photographs.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Sexual Offences Act 2003 - definition changed from under 16 to under 18 - section 45

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 - possession computer and cartoon - see section 62

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25

 

[acbytesla]

Why don't you explain to the thread why you want such porn to be available? You don't like being told 'no' do you?

Of course not. But that is irrelevant. I have no problem with it. And I believe that laws that do not address to fix a particular problem should not exist.

 

[Poem]

Incomprehensible.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm with Darat - it's abhorrent:

Watch that type of content in the UK (and elsewhere) and expect to be put away.

You're conflating schoolgirl cosplay with actual CSAM again. You should stop doing that.

 

[acbytesla]

You're conflating schoolgirl cosplay with actual CSAM again. You should stop doing that.

He's deliberately doing that. Remember, Poem has said all pornography is vile and abhorrent. He's painting with a very broad brush. He demonized it all. So he picks the worst and conflates it with the rest.

 

[TragicMonkey]

He's deliberately doing that. Remember, Poem has said all pornography is vile and abhorrent. He's painting with a very broad brush. He demonized it all. So he picks the worst and conflates it with the rest.

After 252 pages of this I can't see how this is surprising. Perhaps in another 252 pages someone will make some headway? Or it'll just lapse until the next reset and start aaaaall over.

 

[Joe Random]

After 252 pages of this I can't see how this is surprising. Perhaps in another 252 pages someone will make some headway? Or it'll just lapse until the next reset and start aaaaall over.

Wait, so did Amanda Knox see a snake blink its eyelids or not? The REO Speedwagon song wasn't clear on that.

 

[Lithrael]

After 252 pages of this I can't see how this is surprising. Perhaps in another 252 pages someone will make some headway? Or it'll just lapse until the next reset and start aaaaall over.

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.

 

[Poem]

You're conflating schoolgirl cosplay with actual CSAM again. You should stop doing that.

What about the following is in any way ambiguous to you?

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.

 

[Poem]

Lots of Americans (obviously not just America, but it is certainly legal there) are masturbating to what looks like child porn. MAGA?

 

[Darat]

I'm with Darat - it's abhorrent:

Watch that type of content in the UK (and elsewhere) and expect to be put away.

No idea. In the UK whilst pornography is legal, pornography that involves anyone under the age of 18, or pornography suggesting sexual activity with children regardless of the age of the people involved is illegal (ETA: note this also includes the likes of animated content). Producing (in any capacity) such illegal content is also illegal in the UK, distributing such content is illegal in the UK, consuming such content is illegal in the UK.

UK society has decided to have some of the toughest sentences in our justice system for those that produce and/or distribute such content and also those that consume such content.

ETA: https://ukcareguide.co.uk/what-is-illegal-to-watch-on-the-internet-in-the-uk/

When I first read these posts I was also under the impression that such porn was illegal, but that is not the case. It's illegal on DVD and Blu Ray but it is perfectly legal on the internet. None of it is being shut down.

On page 4 of the Bernardo's report it says:

Pornographic content that is illegal offline, but legal online

Online pornography platforms host videos depicting sexual activity with actors or characters who look like children: petite, young-looking performers made to look underage through props such as stuffed toys, lollipops and school uniforms and sexual activity between family members, particularly step-families. Although not strictly illegal, this is extremely harmful, sexualising children and driving the demand for ‘real’ child sexual abuse material.

This is again Poem's misunderstanding of what "barley legal" means. They do not understand that it means legal pornography as defined in UK legislation.

 

[Poem]

This is again Poem's misunderstanding of what "barley legal" means. They do not understand that it means legal pornography as defined in UK legislation.

I merely pointed out that the law is not properly being enforced in the UK because we have not kept up with technology (or, more cynically, because there is a rape culture here). Theoretically, anyone who consumes material that suggests underage content (even though over 18) could be convicted - which is essentially what you are saying.

Why is this type of content abhorrent? Why are you having trouble articulating it? Just admit what I and others and been saying all along - it can and does lead to actual child sex abuse. Once you admit that, then you won't hesitate to admit all other porn-related escalations that are clearly occurring.

 

[Poem]

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.

Pointing out that there is a continuum from borderline to extreme content on the net, which is essentially what you are saying here, isn't saying much. You seriously aren't suggesting that escalation isn't a thing are you?

 

[arthwollipot]

Lots of Americans (obviously not just America, but it is certainly legal there) are masturbating to what looks like child porn. MAGA?

It doesn't look like child porn. The actors do not look like children. They look like actors playing a "barely legal" role.

If anybody watching "barely legal" porn believes that the actors therein are actually underage, then they have a serious reality problem.

 

[Poem]

It doesn't look like child porn. The actors do not look like children. They look like actors playing a "barely legal" role.

If anybody watching "barely legal" porn believes that the actors therein are actually underage, then they have a serious reality problem.

Certainly some content will be borderline or thereabouts. The tendency will be to excuse what one has just masturbated to as perfectly legal, all the while knowing one has taken another incremental small step towards getting off on a child.

The more society redefines sex as nothing special - something preformed without consequence, the more sex with a child is justifiable. Porn does exactly that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Certainly some content will be borderline or thereabouts. The tendency will be to excuse what one has just masturbated to as perfectly legal, all the while knowing one has taken another incremental small step towards getting off on a child.

You're invoking the Slippery Slope? Okay. Sure.