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

[theprestige]

Part of the problem with this discussion, for me, is that Poem seems to have a whole stable of horses, none of which can actually make it around the track. Every time one gets knackered, he switches to one of the others, even though they're all lames.

He's constantly changing the subject from access to underage to ("barely") legal to slavery to politics... But can't figure out how how to bring any of it around the final turn, onto the home stretch. Instead he keeps trying to gaslight us into imagining he's been on the home stretch this whole time, and we're the only ones who haven't noticed he's about to cross the finish line.

 

[acbytesla]

I strongly disagree, I think it's a good law as it helps create a more distinct boundary between legal and illegal in an area where that is very important. There is no good reason for making pornography for adults that blurs the line between pornography and child abuse. And it only works one way - there is nothing illegal for instance if you want to make pornography that features an 18 year old and a seventy year old.

It does none of that. It is subjective to individual perception, not reality. It is impossible to enforce objectively. Laws should neither be capricious or arbitrary. Draw distinct laws, not laws that authorities can and certainly will abuse.

 

[arthwollipot]

On issue @Poem is having, because he hasn't actually seen any porn, is that the performers in porn tagged "barely legal" don't look underage. Even if in a schoolgirl costume they still have the physical appearance of fully adult people. Because when they take the costume off they have a fully adult body underneath.

Nobody watching "barely legal" porn is capable of believing that the performers themselves, or the characters they are portraying, are underage.

 

[acbytesla]

On issue @Poem is having, because he hasn't actually seen any porn, is that the performers in porn tagged "barely legal" don't look underage. Even if in a schoolgirl costume they still have the physical appearance of fully adult people. Because when they take the costume off they have a fully adult body underneath.

Nobody watching "barely legal" porn is capable of believing that the performers themselves, or the characters they are portraying, are underage.

I think the point is that the title "barely legal" is not misleading. Unless of course that the actors are thirty something which is sometimes the case. It tells viewers that the performers are 23, 22, or maybe 19, or even 18. But that they are not underage performers. Barely legal means legal. It's not like the title says "kiddie porn," or "15 year olds gone wild!"

 

[arthwollipot]

I think the point is that the title "barely legal" is not misleading. Unless of course that the actors are thirty something which is sometimes the case. It tells viewers that the performers are 23, 22, or maybe 19, or even 18. But that they are not underage performers. Barely legal means legal. It's not like the title says "kiddie porn," or "15 year olds gone wild!"

@Poem is saying that the performers in "barely legal" porn look underage, or that the characters they are portraying are presented as underage. That is not the case, and the fact that Poem is trying to claim that they are is evidence of his lack of experience and knowledge regarding porn.

You'd think someone who spends so much time crusading against porn would take the time to actually watch some so that they know what they're talking about. Even the religious leaders who crusade against homosexuality generally have some experience with it.

 

[Poem]

On issue @Poem is having, because he hasn't actually seen any porn,

False and you know that.

is that the performers in porn tagged "barely legal" don't look underage.

I pointed you to that Christian documentary but you wouldn't watch it. They looked underage.

Even if in a schoolgirl costume they still have the physical appearance of fully adult people. Because when they take the costume off they have a fully adult body underneath.

The sexual excitement for the consumer is the fantasy of underage sex...at the very least initially.

Nobody watching "barely legal" porn is capable of believing that the performers themselves, or the characters they are portraying, are underage.

Lots and lots of people who have consumed porn have watched real rapes and real child abuse. Companies like Aylo are being dragged through the courts right now by those that suffered such abuse.

You aren't the arbiter when it comes to barely legal porn regarding what the consumer thinks about the content they are watching and how much that feeds into a desire for the real thing.

 

[Poem]

@Poem is saying that the performers in "barely legal" porn look underage, or that the characters they are portraying are presented as underage. That is not the case, and the fact that Poem is trying to claim that they are is evidence of his lack of experience and knowledge regarding porn.

You'd think someone who spends so much time crusading against porn would take the time to actually watch some so that they know what they're talking about. Even the religious leaders who crusade against homosexuality generally have some experience with it.

This was enough but you won't watch it:

CONTENT WARNING: This series features content that viewers may find disturbing, including images and themes of simulated s*xual abuse, inc*st, and s*xual assault. N*dity has been blurred. Viewer discretion is strongly advised.

(It is a Christian documentary made by Magic Lantern Pictures).

 

[Poem]

Barely legal isn't just abhorrent, it's depraved. Reminds me of Panam verses the 13 districts.

 

[arthwollipot]

False and you know that.

You show no sign of having any understanding of the content of porn. For example:

I pointed you to that Christian documentary but you wouldn't watch it. They looked underage.

An adult actor only looks underage to someone who does not know what women's bodies look like. And someone who has watched porn knows what women's bodies look like and won't make that mistake.

The sexual excitement for the consumer is the fantasy of underage sex...at the very least initially.

Uh huh. And you know this precisely how?

Lots and lots of people who have consumed porn have watched real rapes and real child abuse.

Your evidence for this?

Companies like Aylo are being dragged through the courts right now by those that suffered such abuse.

Then let's wait for judgement before passing, er... judgement, shall we?

You aren't the arbiter when it comes to barely legal porn regarding what the consumer thinks about the content they are watching and how much that feeds into a desire for the real thing.

Neither, obviously, are you. I at least have watched some "barely legal" porn (for the intended purpose rather than to pick at things to complain about). At no point did I believe that I was watching anyone who was not 18+.

This was enough but you won't watch it:

No, I won't, because I have no wish to waste half an hour of my life watching Christian propaganda. I'd rather spend that half hour watching "barely legal" porn. The channel's home page won't even use the word "sex" without masking it.

 

[Darat]

It does none of that. It is subjective to individual perception, not reality. It is impossible to enforce objectively. Laws should neither be capricious or arbitrary. Draw distinct laws, not laws that authorities can and certainly will abuse.

Your complaint is at odds with how our justice system works across most criminal matters. The test for a guilty verdict for an individual jurist is usually given as "beyond reasonable doubt", it can be argued that what is reasonable for thee may not be reasonable for me. The justice system has had much experience with teasing out what it means when legislation is governed by what a "reasonable person" would consider the case.

 

[Darat]

On issue @Poem is having, because he hasn't actually seen any porn, is that the performers in porn tagged "barely legal" don't look underage. Even if in a schoolgirl costume they still have the physical appearance of fully adult people. Because when they take the costume off they have a fully adult body underneath.

Nobody watching "barely legal" porn is capable of believing that the performers themselves, or the characters they are portraying, are underage.

And as I evidenced earlier even if the UK required all porn accessible in the UK to be classified in the same way we classify porn for sale on physical medium, which is what apparently some campaigners want, "barely legal" porn would still be available. Which really shouldn't be a suprise to anyone since "barely legal" means nothing more than "legal", we only have two categories, legal and illegal. Anything else is marketing bumpf.

 

[acbytesla]

Your complaint is at odds with how our justice system works across most criminal matters. The test for a guilty verdict for an individual jurist is usually given as "beyond reasonable doubt", it can be argued that what is reasonable for thee may not be reasonable for me. The justice system has had much experience with teasing out what it means when legislation is governed by what a "reasonable person" would consider the case.

You've built in "reasonable doubt" into every case by creating a law that is subjective to everyone.

 

[acbytesla]

And as I evidenced earlier even if the UK required all porn accessible in the UK to be classified in the same way we classify porn for sale on physical medium, which is what apparently some campaigners want, "barely legal" porn would still be available. Which really shouldn't be a suprise to anyone since "barely legal" means nothing more than "legal", we only have two categories, legal and illegal. Anything else is marketing bumpf.

True. Which has been my point.

 

[Poem]

You show no sign of having any understanding of the content of porn. For example:

An adult actor only looks underage to someone who does not know what women's bodies look like. And someone who has watched porn knows what women's bodies look like and won't make that mistake.

No one has to watch porn to know what a naked woman's body looks. You also seem to have forgotten Sound Investigations undercover work and Dillion Rice. If anyone knows about barely legal then he would right?

Uh huh. And you know this precisely how?

Listen to Dillion Rice:
"For the ads, the dudes that do the most conversion rates are guys that look like 15"

You are defending depravity Art.

Your evidence for this?

Nicholos Kristof article 'The Children of Pornhub' and the FTC's report.

Then let's wait for judgement before passing, er... judgement, shall we?

We know that there will be guilt (at least anyone with knowledge of Aylo's moral bankruptcy will). It also helps if one has not been desensitised by porn.

Neither, obviously, are you. I at least have watched some "barely legal" porn (for the intended purpose rather than to pick at things to complain about). At no point did I believe that I was watching anyone who was not 18+.

As I implied, I don't want to be watching something that is obviously depraved. The Magic Lantern film was sickening.

No, I won't, because I have no wish to waste half an hour of my life watching Christian propaganda. I'd rather spend that half hour watching "barely legal" porn. The channel's home page won't even use the word "sex" without masking it.

Let's do a deal: you watch the video and I'll respond to:

Porn is good for society | Anna Arrowsmith

Anna Arrowsmith: The government is playing to the crowd with its opt-in plan for online porn, ignoring the positive role it can play

www.theguardian.com

 

[Poem]

You show no sign of having any understanding of the content of porn. For example:


An adult actor only looks underage to someone who does not know what women's bodies look like. And someone who has watched porn knows what women's bodies look like and won't make that mistake.


Uh huh. And you know this precisely how?


Your evidence for this?


Then let's wait for judgement before passing, er... judgement, shall we?


Neither, obviously, are you. I at least have watched some "barely legal" porn (for the intended purpose rather than to pick at things to complain about). At no point did I believe that I was watching anyone who was not 18+.


No, I won't, because I have no wish to waste half an hour of my life watching Christian propaganda. I'd rather spend that half hour watching "barely legal" porn. The channel's home page won't even use the word "sex" without masking it.

According to Darat I face a lengthy prison sentence if I were caught watching internet porn that depicts actors looking underage. He's wrong of course, but it will be law soon.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm curious. What exactly is depraved?

Is group sex depraved?
Is sex between two women depraved?
Is sex between two men depraved?
Is role playing depraved?
Is the use of sex toys depraved?
Is bondage depraved?
Are master submissive games depraved?
Oral sex?
Anal sex?

From my reading of your previous posts, my impression is that you think any non-monogamous sex outside of marriage is wrong. Does that make a depiction of two married people trying every Kama Sutra position okay with you?

Is any depiction of two non-married individuals having sex depraved?

 

[arthwollipot]

No one has to watch porn to know what a naked woman's body looks. You also seem to have forgotten Sound Investigations undercover work and Dillion Rice. If anyone knows about barely legal then he would right?

I have no idea who that is. But whoever they are, they're linking to Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan who are known liars and misinformation pushers, so I dismiss their authority. Nobody who takes those two seriously is credible.

Wait - you don't take Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan seriously, do you?

Nicholos Kristof article 'The Children of Pornhub' and the FTC's report.

I've already addressed why I do not consider this to be sufficient evidence. Got anything else?

We know that there will be guilt (at least anyone with knowledge of Aylo's moral bankruptcy will). It also helps if one has not been desensitised by porn.

Prejudice. Literal prejudice. Right out there in the open. In the civilised world, the principle of innocent until proven guilty applies. Only the Cardassians say that if you weren't guilty you wouldn't be on trial.

As I implied, I don't want to be watching something that is obviously depraved. The Magic Lantern film was sickening.

Then stop claiming you know why people watch porn! You have zero first-hand knowledge or understanding of what porn is, what it portrays, or what it looks like to the consumer. You are arguing from a position of ignorance! Your entire argument consists of parroting people who have made an entire career out of advocating for the evils of porn.

Let's do a deal: you watch the video and I'll respond to:

No deal. If I watch your video, then I want you to watch half an hour of "barely legal" porn.

 

[arthwollipot]

According to Darat I face a lengthy prison sentence if I were caught watching internet porn that depicts actors looking underage. He's wrong of course, but it will be law soon.

I assure you, you will be perfectly safe watching half an hour of "barely legal" porn on PornHub. I'd make recommendations but that's against the rules.

 

[Poem]

I assure you, you will be perfectly safe watching half an hour of "barely legal" porn on PornHub. I'd make recommendations but that's against the rules.

Like I said, Darat is wrong, so I agree - but, be assured, I won't ever be watching such content.

 

[arthwollipot]

Like I said, Darat is wrong, so I agree - but, be assured, I won't ever be watching such content.

And I won't ever be watching your Christian propaganda.