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

[theprestige]

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.

No. I was rebutting your claim that a slippery slope calls into question the per se legitimacy of free expression. If you're going to quote my posts and reply to them, I'd prefer you address the arguments I'm actually making in my posts.

And you've alleged a societal cost, but much of this thread has been discussion of whether the cost you've alleged is as great as you allege it to be.

I don't think the cost you've alleged is great enough to justify the restrictions on free speech that you seem to favor. The meaning we ascribe to sex is irrelevant to both your argument and mine.

This is an example of where we are at:


Is there a material difference tp?

That may be an example of where you and acbytesla are at. It's not an example of where we - you and I - are at.

I have no idea what you mean by material difference, here.

If you have an argument to make, that sex has unique material qualities, that justify broad restrictions on freedom of expression of sex acts, then make the argument. Don't waste my time and yours asking me questions about the argument you have in mind.

 

[Poem]

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.

Darat emphatically laying out UK law #4,289. He was pushing back on my:

.....material that is potentially harmful, for example because it depicts and/or promotes child sexual abuse, trafficking, or violent sexual acts.

5. There is no equivalent standard to the BBFC’s regulation for online pornographic content as the internet has evolved largely without regulatory oversight.
(My emphasis)


The bottom line is point 5. Without classification, then internet porn is...well, unclassified. No one will be prosecuted until the BBFC or equivalent determines a classification for each and every video.

Nope - not true, people are prosecuted. Again you not understanding the regulatory system in the UK and not understanding the current legislation is hampering your ability to argue any meaningful points.

I will try again:

It starts with the Protection of Children Act 1978, this originally criminalised the production or possession of indecent images of children under the age of 16, later amendments widened this by introduction of the term "pseudo-photographs which is defined as images that appear to show children even if no child was actually involved in the production. The definition of "child" was then amended in the Sexual Offences (2003) act to raise it to apply to under 18s. That means if the pornography depicts someone as being under 18 - even if the participant is older - it falls under the law. Then in 2009 via the Coroners and Justice Act it further criminalised possession or production of cartoon or computer-generated sexual images of minors i.e. those under or appear to be under 18. (This was to provide clearer guidance for new media.) What this means is even if an adult performer i.e. someone over 18 is made to appear to be under 18 and the material is pornographic it can be treated as indecent images of children.
..................................

Before I continue with the rest of your post - please state if you think Darat is wrong. I have also quoted Australian law which is even more strict.

 

[Darat]

Post in thread 'Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?'

Aug 24, 2026

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...

• Darat

• 

 

[Poem]

Post in thread 'Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?'

Aug 24, 2026

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...

• Darat

• 

I have already distinguished the legal material you are talking about from illegal content described in these articles below (and I have repeatedly asked you to respond):

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.

 

[arthwollipot]

I dunno. Scratching someone else's itch seems like a moderately intimate act. I wouldn't let just anyone do it.

 

[Poem]

Why would anyone scruple to answer? If sex is on a par with back scratching then let's do it on the street.

Someone mentioned axiomatic...

 

[Poem]

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.

It was Darat who emphasised the actual (UK) law and doubled down on the irrelevance of actual age:

If the porn video gives the appearance of the performers being under 18 it is illegal in the UK, doesn't matter what media or distribution channel is used.

Can you cite any cases where anyone in the UK has been prosecuted?
I found a case where parents where judged to have sexually abused their own daughter by showing her porn.

You are joking?

Somerset man found with more 100,000 indecent images of children

Adam Dodden is given a suspended sentence for amassing a huge amount of child sexual abuse images.

www.bbc.co.uk

Rapist John Barney jailed over child pornography images

A convicted rapist serving a 10-year sentence is jailed for possessing child pornography.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ashley Payne: Man jailed for 'horrifying' child sex abuse images

Police say they recovered 18,000 images and videos from Ashley Payne's electronic devices.

www.bbc.co.uk

Go to any news site that covers the UK and you will find hundreds of such reports.

I'll just respond to this first citation: it is about child sex abuse images of actual children.
Perhaps you have got confused by what we are talking about? - adults made to look like children...

Again go and check the primary legislation, all depictions of under 18 year olds in pornography - regardless of the actual age of the participants - are classed the same in law.

I asked for an example of someone in the UK being charged with making or consuming porn that features adults made to look underage. You haven't provided any (though I am assuming your other citations are of the same sort as the first - actual children).

You again show you don't understand the law; by law any such prosecution would be prosecuted as having or producing images of children, that is the legal definition. The law makes no distinction. Go back and read the actual legislation.

 

[catsmate]

YiuCat got tongue.

No, merely waiting for you to do you own research.

 

[Poem]

The Beatles: "Why don't we do it in the road?"

 

[Darat]

The Beatles: "Why don't we do it in the road?"

Societal taboos about sex have changed and been very varied over the history of mankind. Would you want to be watched consummating your marriage? That has been a practice that has been around for a very long time, much longer than the idea of not doing the act under the watchful gazes of the witnesses.

 

[Poem]

Societal taboos about sex have changed and been very varied over the history of mankind. Would you want to be watched consummating your marriage? That has been a practice that has been around for a very long time, much longer than the idea of not doing the act under the watchful gazes of the witnesses.

Are you suggesting there is no meaniful difference between sex and back scratching? Evidence for the boldened? #5,864

 

[Darat]

I am saying what I said, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Poem]

I asked Darat for evidence but none was provided.
No evidence, no response to a specific question and post and no response to myriad requests for clarification.

 

[Poem]

There is something about sex that is awkward for the pro-porn narrative.

 

[Darat]

I asked Darat for evidence but none was provided.
No evidence, no response to a specific question and post and no response to myriad requests for clarification.

Your lack of understanding is something I am OK with.

 

[Poem]

Lack of engagement is clear evidence of an awareness that one's rebuttal is inadequate.

 

[Ziggurat]

Lack of engagement is clear evidence of an awareness that one's rebuttal is inadequate.

No, it isn't. That's one possible cause, but definitely not the only. I've disengaged from debates out of boredom before, I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

 

[Poem]

No we don't. We allow computers in other countries to pull data off file servers hosted within the USA. If they choose to restrict such data, that is on them.

Either way, both are culpable - the US more so for facilitating it's production. To know the true state of human nature then we need look no further; the West's claim to morality and 'civilisation' is a sham.

 

[theprestige]

There is something about sex that is awkward for the pro-porn narrative.

Is there, though?

My pro-porn narrative is that pornography is expression, that there is a human right to free expression, and that that right necessarily includes pornographic expressions. Nothing about sex makes my pro-porn (i.e., pro-free-speech) narrative awkward for me.

What do you think it is about sex, that would make it awkward for my free speech narrative?

 

[lobosrul5]

Either way, both are culpable - the US more so for facilitating it's production. To know the true state of human nature then we need look no further; the West's claim to morality and 'civilisation' is a sham.

No it doesn't. Culpability means guilty of a crime. Doing something legal within your jurisdiction does not make you culpable of a crime because a person viewed it where it is a crime.